In addition the Act permitted selective reduction of embryos in a multiple pregnancy

In addition, the Act permitted selective reduction of embryos in a multiple pregnancy. David Amess sought for doctors and nurses to opt in to abortion work rather than out of it. Kenneth Hargreaves’s Bill required ancillary workers to give positive assent to assisting at abortions1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology ActAttempting to provide a response to rapidly changing medical practice, the Act introduced, along with permitting the use of human embryos for experimental purposes, an upper limit of 24 weeks, instead of 28 weeks, for most abortions. Nicholas Bennett presented a Bill to require doctors to declare that they had no interest and derived no benefits from abortion clinics. After numerous amendments (later abortions in emergencies, in cases of child handicap, for rape and incest cases and where the mother was under 18) the Bill was finally talked out1989 Much activity but no changeAnn Widdecombe aimed to make it necessary for a woman coming to Britain for an abortion to notify a doctor in her own country of the operation.

The Bill failed without even the support of the pro-life lobby who feared that interference with the existing Act could lead to amendments supporting abortion up to birth1988 Alton’s second amendment failsDavid Alton aimed to establish an abortion time limit of 18 weeks. The Trades Union Congress, unprecedentedly, supported the pro- abortion women’s groups and called for the Bill’s defeat1980 Alton amendment failsDavid Alton failed to prohibit abortions after 24 weeks1982 Lords amendment failsLord Robertson of Oakridge introduced a Bill similar to John Corrie’s, but failed to get a majority in the Lords1987 Paternal rights amendment failsAfter a father had unsuccessfully appealed in court before an intended abortion, Peter Bruinvels introduced a Bill to amend the Infant Life (Preservation) Act to give putative fathers the right to be consulted. However, the government set up the Lane Committee to investigate how the Act was working1974 Lane Committee report backs ActThe committee backed the working of the 1967 Act1979 Corrie amendment failsJohn Corrie’s Private Member’s Bill aimed to change the social clause to stipulate that there would have to be serious injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or to her existing children, to prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks, to tighten the conscience clause and to stop any links between the pregnancy advice bureaux and the abortion clinics. His aim, he said, was to “stamp out backstreet abortions”1969 First attempt at amendment failsAmid claims that the Act was being used for “abortion on demand”, Norman St John-Stevas presented a Bill to rescind the “social” clause and make it compulsory for one certifying doctor to be a consultant gynaecologist or doctor appointed by the Secretary of State, the first of many unsuccessful assaults on the 1967 Act. He was acquitted on the grounds that he acted to save her life1939 Birkett Committee calls for change in law Government-appointed committee recommended liberalising abortion law but the outbreak of Second World War intervened1967 The Abortion ActDavid Steel’s Bill to provide a framework for legal abortions was passed. Flushed with success, this is something they seem to be forgetting.”You see,” Mr Scarisbrick explained. “Our strongest argument is to keep saying that women do not want abortion.”How the 1967 Abortion Act has withstood the test of time1861 Offences against the Persons ActIn an effort to stem the number of deaths from “back-street” abortions the Act made it illegal to “procure a miscarriage”1938 Dr Aleck Bourne challengeDr Bourne invited police to prosecute him for carrying out an abortion on a 14-year-old rape victim.

But like old socialists who just can’t help saying “comrade” even though they know it doesn’t go down so well these days, its leaders appear unwilling, or perhaps unable, to resist the oldest and least successful line: that the 1967 Act must be abolished because abortion means murdering babies – a call which the country has consistently rejected. “A human being is killed.”The pro-life movement may look like it has its best chance in 30 years to win support for legal reform because it has redrawn the debate. What happens when an abortion is done?” asked Jack Scarisbrick. Pro-life campaigners may present new events in eye-catching wrapping paper but, once we undo all the layers, we are left looking at the same question: should women have the right to choose? And, ironically, the pro-life movement agrees.”We have to keep coming back to the fundamentals. You are going to have a pregnancy you do not want.’ “Four out of 10 British women have an abortion at some time in their lives. Half of all conceptions are unplanned, and 30 per cent occur while contraception is being used.

“The naive idealism encouraged by pro-life groups,” argued Ann Ferudi, “bites the dust when it meets the realities of people’s personal experience.”This society still generally regards sex as a legitimate recreational activity, and considers the notion of only engaging in it to become pregnant fairly bizarre. It is all much more exciting than the well-worn stuff about backstreet abortions and women’s rights. But essentially, it reduces to the same argument.”The case of the twins was extraordinary,” said Janet Hadley. “But if you look at the other side of it, what’s the alternative? ‘No, you are not going to have an abortion. When it all comes down to it, the same fundamental principle is at stake. Either you accept that the foetus or embryo is a human being with the same rights as a living human being, or you do not. Either you believe in a woman’s right to choose, or you do not.”Certainly, recent events have been dramatic The debacle at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital was electrifying Embryos in test tubes made an arresting spectacle.

Serious newspapers in recent weeks have been agonising over “profound ethical dilemmas”. So, the pro-life movement just has to sit back,wait for the public to read, and victory will be theirs?”The whole point is,” Ann Furedi argued last week, “that there’s nothing objectively new in any of this. It’s all going to change now.”If Ms Bowman’s analysis is correct and the pro-life movement’s problems were all down to unhelpful journalists (“they thought we were an attack on their lifestyle, you see”), then truly its day has come. The media were the whole reason why the public didn’t understand. Now we’ve got at least three papers on our side, and you’ve even got the Guardian running an article calling for IVF to be abolished. “A brilliant piece of journalism! Thumping stuff!” Phyllis Bowman is grimly triumphant.”The way the media have treated us all these years – it’s something which has eaten away at my soul. “People are saying they just had no idea that the world had come to this terrible pass,” reported Phyllis Bowman, director of Spuc.