The recent failure to reform the creaking Abortion Act should worry both pro-and anti-abortion lawyers, says Charles Foster
The 40t h anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967 (AbA 1967) generated shrill speeches from all parties to the abort ion debate, a craven, well-whipped shuffle through the lobbies in what should have been a free vote, and, so far, no change to the basic architecture of the Act.
But although the headlines have moved on to other things, the abortion issue has not gone away. The battle-lines of the next phase are becoming clear. The antiabortionists continue to press for a general review of the legislation. The pro-abortionists, flushed with their success in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, and hoping for more at Committee stage, are demanding that the “two-doctor rule” (which requires two medical practitioners to endorse an abortion), is replaced with a simple “informed consent” clause—allowing abortion provided that the woman is sufficiently informed about the pros and cons of the proposed procedure.
Whatever one's view of the
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
