Killing unborn children is in itself unjust and could not be accepted in a civilised society. Abortion is seen as a means of effecting social change and, although it has certainly caused great changes in society, those changes have not been those which abortionists claimed would result. The actual changes have been the coarsening of society, the loss of respect for human beings at all stages of life and the promotion of the idea of a life not worth living.
A BRIEF HISTORY 1966 - 2003
Winter 2002/2003
Number 96
35 Years On
The 11th October 1967 was one of the blackest days in the long history of our Parliament's law-making, for on that day Her Majesty gave her Royal Assent to the shameful Abortion Bill which Mr David Steel M.P. (Lord Steel of Aikwood as he now is) had introduced into the House of Commons as the Private Member's 'Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill' the year before in 1966. The Bill had its title changed very late in its passage through Parliament to 'the Abortion Bill', and so, on that blackest of days in 1967, the Abortion Bill became 'the Abortion Act 1967', under the provisions of which some six million and more young, defenceless and wholly innocent fellow human beings of ours have been ruthlessly killed.
So October 2002 saw the 35th anniversary of that grim day in 1967, and since anniversaries are always a good time for reflection - particularly if such reflection can give guidance as to the future - we propose to pause and reflect upon the past 35 years and see what lessons they offer.
Many of our members will have lived through all of those thirty-five years, and a sizeable proportion of us will have been involved in the various events and incidents which have occurred in this 35-year period. To them we perhaps ought to apologise for revisiting what, to them, will seem like stale, old, depressing news. But there are new members joining the profession and (more to the point) joining our Association all the time, and many of these younger people will not have lived through the days when abortionists were almost universally considered with abhorrence.
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill
Mr David Steel M.P. was the youngest Member of Parliament in 1966 and drew third place in the Parliamentary ballot for Private Members' Bills. He decided to introduce a Bill to liberalise the law of abortion. In our Winter 1998/1999 Newsletter, Number 80, we reviewed how the Labour Government of the day, and especially the then Home Secretary Roy Jenkins (the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead), bent over backwards to help the Bill, allowing extra time and giving support and advice. At the Bill's Second Reading on 22nd July 1966, the Bill's promoter Mr David Steel declared in the House of Commons :
"We want to stamp out back-street abortions, but it is not the intention of the Promoters of the Bill to leave a wide open door for abortion on request”1,
but, naturally enough, as soon as the Act came into force in April 1968, so-called "back street" abortionists simply opened their doors as front street abortionists and the abortion industry began to thrive and blossom.
In the space of a few months a relatively small number of M.Ps2 made a huge dent into what had been the settled law of this country for centuries, that law rightly taking the view that abortion, being a particularly cruel and callous and unjust form of homicide, should be punished with very severe penalties3. In our Newsletters we have frequently drawn attention to the fact that the wonders for society in general and for the poor in particular which the supporters of Mr David Steel's Bill promised have proved to be totally illusory. A tremendous confidence-trick was perpetrated on the public, and no clear-sighted or open-minded person can seriously maintain that 35 years of daily killings by abortion have done anything other than huge damage to the morale, the morals and the economy of our country.
The 1960s
From May 1968 onwards, the number of abortions carried out rose immediately. In 1968 the total number of abortions notified to the Department of Health was 29,581. In 1969 it was 56,890, and in 1970 the total had risen to 88,5874.
1970s and the 1980s - the era of Private Members' Bills
During these two decades many Private Members' Bills were introduced into Parliament by M.Ps of all parties, and there were many fierce and intensive campaigns waged by pro-lifers supporting such Bills which were opposed by supporters of abortion. Thus Bills intended to amend the Abortion Act were introduced by Mr. Norman St John Stevas, Mr Godman Irvine, Mr James White, Mr William Benyon, Mr John Corrie, Mr Nicholas Winterton, Mr Kenneth Hargreaves and perhaps most famously, in 1988, by Mr David Alton (now Lord Alton of Liverpool). In addition a Parliamentary Committee was established in 1971 under the Chairmanship of Mrs Justice Lane which reported in 19746, and a Parliamentary Select Committee was set up in 19757. Much was expected from the Select Committee's Report, particularly since the Government of the day had declared that the establishment of the Select Committee was
"not a delaying device....When the Select Committee reports it will be open to Hon. Members to put forward legislation in the normal way or for Government to consider whether they themselves should put forward legislation. "8
In retrospect, it seems clear that referring Mr White's Bill to this Select Committee was just a tactic designed to prevent further progress on the Bill which had received a high level of support and which the supporters of abortion feared might be successful. Mr William Benyon M.P. introduced a Bill into the House of Commons in 1976 which was based upon the recommendations of that Select Committee, but it was as bitterly opposed by pro-abortion M.Ps and by the then Government as all the other Bills had been. Although Mr Benyon's Bill received a Second Reading, it too was filibustered and eventually fell for lack of time.
During these decades there were also some cases in the courts which had a bearing on the practice of abortion. In July 1972 a Dr John Anthony James Smith was found guilty, after a 14-day trial, of performing an illegal abortion, a decision that was upheld on appeal. The facts of the case read like a horror story9, but the sentence received by the abortionist at his trial at the Central Criminal Court in London was a mere 12-month prison sentence and a fine of £5,000. Since he had charged the 19-year-old girl £150 - in cash, of course, and in advance - for the operation he was to perform at the Haywood Nursing Home in Stanmore, it can be seen that this was not exactly a swingeing penalty nor one that was likely to discourage abortionists in general. The prosecuting authorities not only held back from trying to bring prosecutions, but there also seemed to be a deliberate policy on the part of the Department of Health not to investigate abuses and contraventions of the 1967 Act. Naturally, therefore, abortionists became more and more arrogant in their activities. One abortionist declared that he would write the one word "pregnancy" on the abortion notification forms where he was required to give the reason for the abortion.
The 'Paton' and other cases
In 1978, a Mr Paton applied to the High Court10 for an injunction to prevent his wife from aborting his child. The injunction was refused on the basis that.
"a husband had no right, enforceable at law or in equity, to stop his wife having, or a registered medical practitioner performing, a legal abortion".
The lamentable state of the law was highlighted in 1987 by the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of C.v S.12 which involved an application for an injunction to stop the abortion of an unborn child somewhat older than the one in the Paton case. When giving its judgment refusing an injunction, the Court of Appeal said that,
"Urgency precludes our giving full reasons for our conclusion....But the public interest also requires that so far as possible we indicate the basis of the conclusion. Expanded reasons...will be delivered at a later date".
SSw~~0_35.JPG) |
| Lord Donaldson |
In 1982 a consultant gynaecologist by the name of Anthony Hamilton agreed to carry out an abortion on a woman 33 weeks pregnant. The child, a boy who was named Timothy John, was delivered alive, but Mr Hamilton took him to a hospital sluice room which he deliberately prevented staff from entering to care for the boy. Mr Hamilton was charged with attempted murder'3, but at the committal hearing in September 1983 the Luton Magistrates, in a decision that is still remembered and talked about, held that there was no case to answer and declined to commit Mr Hamilton for trial.
There were many other cases in this period involving such matters as the conscientious objection section in the Abortion Act, (section 4)14, who might or might not be entitled to claim its protection15, and the role of "registered medical practitioners" in the abortion process16. It may sound paranoid to say so, but it is nevertheless a fact that the decisions in all these cases had the effect of making it even easier for those carrying out abortion to avoid legal restrictions on their activities. The Abortion Act itself is a restrictive piece of legislation and, if its provisions were adhered to, limited in its effect. But the way in which it has been interpreted and manipulated in and by many different courts has resulted, in effect, in abortionists having very nearly a completely free hand. What is perhaps even more disturbing is that the authorities seem to have very little interest in enforcing this particular area of the criminal law. Not only millions of young babies, but also the Rule of Law, have suffered appallingly as a result.
The David Alton Bill
In 1988 Mr David Alton M.P. introduced another Private Member's Bill into the House of Commons17. This Bill aroused considerable interest and even concern among abortionists because it looked at one stage as if it might possibly become law. It did in fact result in an amendment of the Abortion Act, but not at all in the way intended. The Bill had some positive results, not least the fact that it put the question of abortion onto the front pages of newspapers, such was the intensity of the campaign for and against it.
The Bill was, in our opinion, fatally flawed from the outset and, probably because of this, became worse as time went by. Its main provision was to introduce into the law a time limit of 18 weeks of pregnancy, after which time an abortion would be illegal. Yet in 1988 there was in the law no "time limit" for abortions, except in so far as the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 prohibited the deliberate killing of any unborn child in the womb "capable of being born alive".18 It was thought that by introducing a specific 'cut-off date relatively early, (18 weeks), the numbers of abortions might be reduced. It was also felt that a limited provision such as this might gain some support from M.Ps who would not vote for an outright ban.
The Bill's weakness lay in its very heart. In our Autumn 1988 Newsletter, Number 39, we analysed some disturbing aspects of the Bill, having already, in our Spring 1988 Newsletter (Number 37) raised some preliminary doubts. The very first words of the Bill were,
"A woman's pregnancy may be terminated...".
In 1988, the law, as now, said that every abortion was an offence unless the abortionist could bring himself within the exceptions permitted by section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967. Had the Bill become law in the terms proposed, it would have meant that the whole presumption of the law was for the first time being completely turned round. This would have been a fundamental change, and we felt that as a matter of principle it was dangerous and thoroughly undesirable for pro-lifers to promote proposed legislation which stated in terms that abortion was permitted.19
There were other objections to the Bill which were dealt with at length in our Autumn 1988 Newsletter (Number 39), but like all other Pro-Life Bills before it, Mr Alton's Bill failed. In many ways, that might have been a satisfactory end to the story, for the Bill had certainly given pro-lifers a wonderful opportunity to bring the issues very much to the fore and into the headlines an opportunity which they had taken with both hands. But as ALDU's distinguished and longstanding Committee member Mr Gerard Wright Q.C. wrote in September 1989 : -
"After the failure of the Alton Bill to achieve a Third Reading, an attempt to reintroduce the selfsame Bill was made by Miss Ann Widdecombe M.P. Angry denunciations were directed at Mr Denis Skinner M.P. when he "talked out" this attempt. I would suggest that all who believe in the Pro-Life cause should thank him rather than denounce him, for he has saved us from a Bill which would have made abortions lawful at a much later stage than is presently permissible on the say-so of doctors against whom no criminal sanction could be imposed".20
Unfortunately, the story did not end at the time of Mr Wright's prophetic words in September 1989. When the Conservative Government, through its Lord Chancellor Lord Mackay of Clashfern, introduced with unconcealed pleasure into the House of Lords its Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in 1989 it included, by agreement with the supporters of Lord Alton's Bill, a section dealing with the question of abortion. This revived the proposal to introduce a time limit, and in the course of an ever-increasingly-bewildering Parliamentary debate and series of votes, various time limits were proposed and voted upon. The outcome of it all was section 37 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 ('HFEA'). Because the HFEA in effect repealed the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929,21 abortions may now be carried out right up until the time of birth. It is difficult to understand how such barbarity could be found in the laws of what claims to be a civilised society, but there it is.
It has been said that, as a quid pro quo for the ideas of Lord Alton's Bill being put before Parliament and debated in the course of the passage of the HFEA, pro-life MPs agreed that no more pro-life anti-abortion Private Members' Bills would be presented for some years. Whether or not this is true, the fact remains that have been no more such Bills, and if past experience is any guide for the early years of the 21st century it is difficult to see what kind of political activity could be successful. In the U.S.A. abortion remains high on the political and party political agenda, but there is not the same burning interest in the subject here in the U.K. It must be admitted that one of the great failures of us members of the pro-life organisations is our failure to persuade our fellow-countrymen of the overwhelming importance of the abortion issue.
The Future
Whilst trying to remain as optimistic as possible, we are bound to say that prospects for the future do not seem promising. There is no sign that our political leaders, including those who openly and publicly attend Church regularly and allow this fact to be flaunted, have any real desire to change the law. Even more depressing is the fact that, as mentioned above, very few of them seem to believe these matters to be of much importance. Every day we hear of shortages of police officers, teachers, doctors, nurses and even - yes ! - lawyers, but it is no wonder that there should be a shortage of people when doctors in the U.K. have killed six million in surgical abortions alone22. Not only have they killed those six million people, but in so doing they have prevented each of those six million people from having any descendants. There must be a reckoning, and it is not going to be a comfortable reckoning.
On a more positive note, we see in the pro-life movement a gathering of good people around the world who, by study and experience, understand better the problems which we face and the reasons why those problems exist. The experience of the past years has made us understand better why it is so important to keep the truth available for people to hear and read. One of the tactics of abortionists and their friends is to swamp any opposition, and with the funds and political and media support available to them they are very successful in doing this. Nevertheless, they cannot prevent us from telling the truth, and that is what we must be determined to continue to do. Because action in Parliament seems, for the moment, unlikely to be effective, action in the courts is beginning be used more and more by pro-life organisations. There have been Judicial Review proceedings and personal injury actions for compensation following abortion injury. This is an area in which we lawyers can and must use our professional skills and our influence for good.
NOTES
1. House of Commons Official Report (Hansard) Friday 22nd July 1966, column 1075.
2. Fewer than 270 Members of Parliament voted at the end of the Second Reading debate on Mr Steel's Bill on Friday 22nd July 1966, (and at its Third Reading a year later the number of M.P's voting was even smaller, with only 167 voting in favour). One of the few 29 clear-thinking and far-sighted M.Ps who voted against the injustices proposed by Mr David Steel M.P. in his Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill at its Second Reading on 22nd July 1966 was Mr William Wells, Q.C., who later became a distinguished member of ALDU, (see our Winter 1989/1990 Newsletter, Number 44).
3. The Abortion Act 1967 did not specifically repeal the earlier law prohibiting abortion, but in its first section (section 1) it stated that in the circumstances set out in that section a killing would no longer be an offence under the law relating to abortion.
4. These figures are taken from the Report (1974 Cmnd. 5579) of Mrs Justice Lane's Committee into the operation and working of the Abortion Act 1967.
5. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children ('SPUC') was established in January 1967 and was the first of the organised pro-life bodies to be set up.
6. The Lane Committee (see note 4 above) was appointed mainly because of the many concerns raised about the racketeering and the large numbers of foreign women coming to the U.K. from abroad to kill their young babies following the coming into force in late April 1968 of the Abortion Act 1967.
7. The Select Committee was set up after Mr James White's Abortion (Amendment) Bill had successfully passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons.
8. Dr David Owen M.P., (now Lord Owen of the City of Plymouth, C.H., P.C.), Minister of State for Health, (Hansard, 7th February 1975, column 1795).
9. Our Association devoted more than a page of our Summer 1993 Newsletter (Number 58) to this case, the report of which can and should be read in full in R.v.Smirh (John) [1973] 1W.L.R. 1510. Nearly 33 years ago now, on 28th April 1970, Dr John Smith operated on an un-named 19-year-old girl after an anaesthetic administered to her by someone who was possibly the abortionist Smith's general driver and porter ; two days after this attempted abortion, the 19-year-old girl was taken ill with "stomach pains" in the night and found herself expelling from her body what must have been the remains of the baby whom the abortionist Smith had tried to kill on 28th April 1970.
10. Paton v. B.P.A.S. Trustees & Anor. [1978] 3 W.L.R. 687.
11. Paton again.
12. C v. S. [1987] 2 W.L.R. 1108.
13. Mr Hamilton could well have been charged with other less serious offences which would have had less emotional effect than Attempted Murder on the Luton Magistrates and thus greater chances of obtaining a conviction.
14. Section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967 is sometimes referred to (wrongly) as the "conscience clause".
15. R. v. Salford Heath Authority, ex parte Janaway H.L. (E.) [1988] 3 W.L.R. 1350.
16. Royal College of Nursing v. D.H.S.S. [1981] 2 W.L.R. 279.
17. The Abortion (Amendment) Bill, introduced into the House of Commons in 1988 by the then Mr David Alton M.P.
18. This mistaken notion that there was a "28-week time limit" arose from a misunderstanding of the effect of section 1 (2) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Again and again, both publicly and privately, our Association tried hard to disabuse both friends and
opponents of their mistaken belief that there was a general "28-week time limit", but unfortunately our efforts had little success.
19. We put forward a similar objection to the wording of the proposals set out in the Irish referendum held on 6th March 2002. This was discussed in our Winter 2001/2002 Newsletter, Number 92.
20. These words of Mr Wright appeared in the September 1989 of the magazine 'Catena' in the article entitled "The Abortion (Amendment) Bill - Should we Support It ?"
21. The Right Hon. Kenneth Clarke M.P., the then Secretary of State for Health, suggested that it would be a good idea if his Government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 were to (in effect) repeal the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 in order to tidy things up. Sadly, M.Ps (and especially pro-life M.Ps) failed to appreciate the significance and the dangers of such a piece of tidying-up.
22. In this sentence we specify six million killings, but no one should overlook the further untold number of "chemical" abortions carried out by so-called "contraceptive" and "morning-after" pills and by things like the Intra-Uterine device; these further untold numbers of killings are not notified to the Department of Health, and go through "on the nod".
