ANN WIDDECOMBE has never been a figure that I have warmed to, and her latest escapade against abortion is one that really makes me doubt her ability to be a role model for women. Widdecombe is currently visiting parts of the UK on her ‘passion for life’ tour, on which she is calling for a tightening of abortion laws. As a female politician, you would expect one of her major concerns to be the welfare and rights of women, yet recent speeches prove her to be an increasingly misogynist figure. When abortion was legalised, the sole purpose was to protect women; an aim that the current laws are unfortunately missing, and it is vital that these issues are addressed.
At the moment, women seeking abortion must gain permission from two doctors: a major problem with the current legislation. Not only does this lengthen and complicate an already difficult decision, it is also frankly quite patronising. However, there is hope in the form of a bill being presented in Parliament to try and banish the ‘two doctor rule’. Why should any women have to justify their decision to two people, and why does a medical degree give you the right to make this decision?
Unfortunately there is a downside to the bill, as it proposes that the abortion limit should be lowered to a mere 21 weeks. If this were passed, it would mean many extremely vulnerable women would suffer. Abortions that take place at 24 weeks are usually done so in extreme circumstances: rape, domestic abuse, or severe risk to the child being examples. In an ideal world, abortions would not be carried out at this stage, but the option for abortions at 24 weeks needs to be in place to protect the psychological well being of women. However, there is an avoidable reason for late abortions. Doctors are turning women away due to their own personal beliefs. Ann Widdecombe believes that the abortion rules should be tightened and the abortion limit lowered. This would put pressure on an already struggling system.
Perhaps the best idea would be to discourage the involvement of the average GP. Specialist centres should be provided that would be dedicated to helping women who need an abortion. Doctors would choose to work in these centres and women would not be met with disapproving eyes, giving them the opportunity to make a rational decision about whether abortion is right for them. Whilst Ann Widdecombe and her campaigners disagree, this would also mean protection for the doctors who are unwilling to be confronted by abortion.
Pro-life campaigners argue that abortion is playing God, but surely by trying to eradicate abortion these people are playing God themselves. They dictate what a woman should do with her body and use them as pawns for their own beliefs. Abortion is always going to be a sensitive issue and no matter what, some people will not be able to comprehend it. However, it can be made quite simple; if you do not agree with it you are not forced to do it. When women have an abortion, they do it privately, therefore what right does Ann Widdecombe have to publicly criticise women’s choices.
Contrary to the beliefs of pro-life campaigners, women do not think that abortion is a form of contraception. It is a last resort. The kinder choice would be to let these women deal with the prospect of abortion in their own way.
Ann Widdecombe does not have to believe in abortion, but at the moment her old fashioned beliefs could potentially have a real impact on young women. Something she must ask herself is this: if she had become pregnant at university and kept the baby, would she have had as much success with her career? The answer is probably no. Women now have the opportunity to have the careers they want and deserve, and if an accident does occur it should not have to be one that hinders them. It is a shame that a woman in her position cannot stand up for women’s rights and really make a difference. I will not tell Ann Widdecombe what to do with her body; therefore what right does she have to control other women’s?
Comment
Have your say, tell us what you think...