Scottish Catholic Observer

IT IS a fact long proven that in the early days of the push for legalised abortion, on both sides of the Atlantic; the numbers of back street abortions were greatly exaggerated.

And it was a tactic that worked well in helping gain public sympathy and support for legalising the procedure and in fact still does today, that’s why it continues to be used by many pro-abortion agencies, even at international level.

Dr Bernard Nathanson, former director of NARAL, the driving force behind the legalisation of abortion in the US, admitted in his book Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist that inflating the numbers of illegal abortions was surprisingly easy for him and his fellow campaigners.

“We aroused enough sympathy to sell our programme of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the US,” he said. “The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating a big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000.”

Nor was such flagrant fabrication confined to the abortion eras of the late 1960s and early 70s. One of the most famous examples was the claim about Portugal in 1982 that 2000 women a year were dying from back street abortions. However, official statistics showed that 2099 women of childbearing years had died in Portugal that year, so either all but 99 of the women in Portugal had died as a result of an abortion that year or the number was false. And similar falsehoods continue to be used time and again, year after year, in order to increase and push for more liberalised abortion provision around the world.

These examples are not designed to diminish in any way the pain of those who suffer undergoing an abortion procedure or, worse still, those who lose their lives as a result. Each and every one is a terrible tragedy and one death is one too many. They merely illustrate how strong and effective the back street abortion argument has been for the pro-abortion movement. Legalised and hospitalised equalled safe, anything else meant death for women.

So, it may have come as a surprise to many readers over recent weeks to learn that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), one of the leading abortion providers and promoters in the UK, was now pushing for abortions to move back out of the hospitals and onto the streets by taking the government to court to allow chemical abortions to take place in the home.

SPUC intervened in the case at the High Court earlier this month and evidence it submitted played a prominent part in Mr Justice Supperstone’s judgement.

Not only was the political and legal expertise of SPUC effective in the case but so too was the experience we were able to draw on from our sister agency—Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline (ARCH)—that provides free, confidential counselling to anyone adversely affected by an abortion experience.

In effect, what BPAS was looking for was for the court to reinterpret the Abortion Act 1967 to allow women to take the chemical abortion drugs—misoprostol and RU486—at home, instead of in a hospital or abortion facility under the supervision of medical staff, claiming this would be in the best interests of women.

The ruling is significant not just for the UK but it is also important internationally too, as chemical abortions are widely promoted in poorer countries, and any move to widen the practice here may adversely affect women around the world.

ARCH say the decision is also important for women in the UK where RU486 abortions are on the increase because the impact of the procedure on many of those who choose it is instantly traumatic for a number of reasons not least that the women take the drugs themselves and live with the abortion over the course of a number of days.

The president of Roussel Uclaf, the original makers of RU486, said of the procedure: “The woman must live with this for a full week. This is an appalling psychological ordeal.” (Edouard Sakiz, chairman, Roussel-Uclaf, August 1990).

Currently the chemical abortion procedure, which makes up around 70 per cent of Scotland’s abortions, sees women take the first pill in hospital then go home before returning for the second pill that will expel the contents of the womb in the hospital. Already she is warned she may abort at home, being left then to suffer the distress of seeing the expelled embryo/foetus, which she is required to keep and return to the hospital or clinic to help determine if the abortion is complete. If the BPAS challenge had been successful, women taking misoprostol would go into labour at home.

“Abortion is not good medicine for women, and does damage the emotional and psychological lives of those in crisis that make this decision,” Margaret Cuthill, national co-ordinator of ARCH, said. “Every woman is impacted by the pregnancy loss, but this procedure adds another mentally-traumatic dimension to the abortion process.

“Women in crisis pregnancy are vulnerable and will react from fear and panic, wanting to be un-pregnant. To be offered a bedroom abortion is an emotional get-out clause many in ignorance will choose. It is really an abuse too far and will add to the trauma of guilt and grief they may experience at some future stage in life.

“BPAS say it is concerned for the woman whose symptoms may begin on the journey back from the clinic. There’s no substance to this concern or reliable studies to back up this statement. I am appalled that BPAS is not concerned for the woman who is in her home, in pain, bleeding and struggling with the choice she has made. Where is the concern then for not only women’s physical safety but their psychological health and well-being?”