On International Day of the Girl Child,
let’s oppose the sexism that causes gender-based abortion
In many ways, this fight for equal human
dignity and worth for all – whether opposed on the basis of gender, or race, or
religion – is a tougher challenge than defeating extreme poverty, or providing
clean drinking water. It may be a battle which we never finish fighting. As the
actress and UN Women Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson said at the UN last year,
‘No country in the world can yet say that they achieved gender equality. These
rights, I consider to be human rights, but I am one of the lucky ones. My life
is a sheer privilege because my parents didn’t love me less because I was born
a daughter.’
Yet, no every daughter is so fortunate.
As a recent Department of Health publication showed, even in the UK daughters
can often be seen as less valuable, or even a failure, just because of their
gender. As one case study in the publication reported, one 25 year old mother
aborted her baby girl, because ‘for various complex cultural reasons both self
imposed and community imposed, she thought by giving birth to a boy she would
be accepted into the family’, but not if she had given birth to a girl. At 29
she aborted twin girls for the same reason. Another case study tells of a man
pressurised into divorcing his wife when she gave birth to their third
daughter. In another, a mother of two sons decided to abort the girl she was
expecting, because as ‘the eldest of six girls…she recalls each time her mother
went to the hospital of how disappointed everyone was when each time it was a
girl. This is experience traumatised and consumed her so much that the thought
of giving birth to a girl meant disappointment, betrayal and lowered status
within the family and community.’ These stories reveal a hidden problem in our
own society; and not one particular to certain communities: ‘family balancing’
is becoming an increasingly common phrase.
This Sunday, 11th
October, is the International Day of the Girl Child. It is a day of
celebration: of daughters, of universal human dignity, and of the great
privilege it is to be a parent to a daughter – just as it is to a son.
The wonderful Pink Ladoo campaign (www.pinkladoo.org)
is marking the occasion by handing out a box Pink Ladoo, traditional sweets, to
parents of all the babies - male and female - born in Birmingham Women's
Hospital. It is a tradition that had previously been reserved for sons, with no
equivalent for daughters, and it is a beautiful gesture to celebrate daughters
on this day.
So, in that same
spirit, on International Day of the Girl Child, let us celebrate all daughters,
and our equal human value, and oppose the sexism that leads so many women to
abort their beautiful baby daughters, just because of their gender. It hurts so
many; it is beneath our shared human dignity; and it is far beneath the lofty
goals set at the United Nations last week.
_____________________________________________________
Abortion (Sex Selection) Ten Minute Rule Bill Speech
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): I beg to
move,
The British Medical Association holds yet another interpretation. It argues that there may be cases where having a child of a particular gender may be
The BMA represents every doctor who permits or performs an abortion and BPAS is the UK’s biggest abortion provider. We cannot sit idly by as it contradicts Ministers over a practice that the Government state is illegal. Urgent clarification from this House is needed.
The main motivation for the Bill, which is more than merely a desire to achieve a consistent policy line on this issue, is that we know that sex-selective abortions are happening in the UK and little is being done to stop them. We know that because a growing number of courageous women are speaking out about their experiences. Here is the story of Rupinder, which is not her real name, told by Jeena International, which works with UK women who have sex-selective abortions.
family and the community. Rupinder made a painful decision to abort which she now regrets as she felt that she had no other choice.”
Then there is the experience of Uraj—also not her real name—which might help to persuade those who doubt that son-preference is a problem in this country.
We can no longer ignore the fact that sex-selective abortion is a reality in the UK. Lest anyone think that this is an issue that applies only in certain communities, they should consider the tragic fact that the words “family balancing” are heard with increasing frequency and understanding across the country.
Thankfully, at the moment, countrywide analyses of birth data do not seem to show significant gender imbalances, but sex-selective abortion is clearly happening. Surely we cannot be saying that we will do nothing until the statistics show a national skewing in gender ratios, as in other countries. That would be wrong. How many more women must come forward before we take action? The time at which Government support should have been offered to women such as Rupinder and Uraj passed long ago, which is why I, and other colleagues, have brought this Bill to the House today.
4 Nov 2014 : Column 679
The Bill is sponsored by 11 female MPs from all parts of the House and supported by a large number of other MPs. Today, I wish to place on record my thanks to those MPs, including: the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), for Salisbury (John Glen), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson), for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) and for North Somerset (Dr Fox). All of them support this Bill and I sincerely thank them for that.
Clause 1 would send a clear signal that abortion for gender is not permissible under UK law, clearing up considerable confusion. Subsection (2) would make it clear that the clarification relates only to sex-selective abortions, therefore putting the Bill squarely in line with the Government’s interpretation of the Abortion Act. Clause 2 obliges the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that the law is being upheld. That will enable the Government to think about ways to help such women.
This month, for the first time, the UK has dropped out of the gender equality top 20. It is a further damning indictment of our commitment to female parity that we allow national institutions to contradict the Government on an illegal practice that predominantly affects girls. Even worse, we are choosing to ignore the evidence of women who have gone on the record and who have suffered under this appalling practice. This has gone on long enough. We must now act. As an editorial in The Independent said in January:
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
The House divided:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to clarify the law
relating to abortion on the basis of sex-selection; and for connected
purposes.
Sex-selective abortions are happening in the UK, and
there is widespread confusion over the law, which is why this Bill is needed.
The Bill is extremely straightforward, merely clarifying that nothing in section
1 of the Abortion Act 1967 allows a pregnancy to be terminated on the grounds of
the sex of the unborn child. It is a shame that this clarification is needed.
Successive Health Ministers and even the Prime Minister have been very clear on
the matter. They state that abortion for reasons of gender alone is illegal. The
Prime Minister has described the practice as “simply appalling”. But these
Ministers are being ignored. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which
performs around 60,000 abortions a year, flatly disagrees with them. Even today,
it is advising women, in one of its leaflets and on its website, that abortion
for reasons of foetal sex is not illegal, because the law is “silent on the
matter”.The British Medical Association holds yet another interpretation. It argues that there may be cases where having a child of a particular gender may be
“a legal and ethical justification for an abortion”
on the
grounds that the sex of the child may severely affect the pregnant woman’s
mental health. I wish to address that point. Some say that the sex of the unborn
child can be a legitimate ground for an abortion where a woman is being
threatened with abuse if she carries the baby to term. Those who make that
argument perhaps fail to realise that, in such tragic cases, it is not the sex
of the child that is the ground for the abortion but the threat of abuse, which
may constitute a physical or mental risk. I find it deplorable that anyone would
be satisfied to provide a sex-selective abortion to a woman who, after she has
had it, is then sent back to an abusive partner. What needs to be addressed in
those dire circumstances is the abuse itself. Those women need help, and that is
one aim of the Bill.The BMA represents every doctor who permits or performs an abortion and BPAS is the UK’s biggest abortion provider. We cannot sit idly by as it contradicts Ministers over a practice that the Government state is illegal. Urgent clarification from this House is needed.
The main motivation for the Bill, which is more than merely a desire to achieve a consistent policy line on this issue, is that we know that sex-selective abortions are happening in the UK and little is being done to stop them. We know that because a growing number of courageous women are speaking out about their experiences. Here is the story of Rupinder, which is not her real name, told by Jeena International, which works with UK women who have sex-selective abortions.
“Rupinder decided to abort her third child as she was
expecting a girl. She was the eldest of six girls and she recalls that each time
her mother went to hospital how disappointed everyone was when each time it was
a girl. This experience traumatised and consumed her so much that the thought of
giving birth to a girl meant disappointment, betrayal and lowered status within
the
4 Nov 2014 : Column 678family and the community. Rupinder made a painful decision to abort which she now regrets as she felt that she had no other choice.”
Then there is the experience of Uraj—also not her real name—which might help to persuade those who doubt that son-preference is a problem in this country.
“During a routine ultra-sound scan Uraj’s husband asked what
the sex of the baby was and was told a girl. During the drive home, there was
pin drop silence in the car. When they arrived home, Uraj started to prepare the
evening meal in the kitchen, trying to silence her daughter at the same time as
she was crying. She knew her husband was not happy and was angry that she was
expecting another girl. She remembers him repeatedly punching and kicking her in
the stomach and passing out. When she regained consciousness her husband had
walked out and he sent her divorce papers a couple of months later.”
Despite
the existence of such stories, there are still those who claim that there is no
evidence for the practice. In response to these critics, Rani Bilkhu, the
director of Jeena International, said:
“Saying that there is no evidence is tantamount to saying
that these women are lying and that our organisation is making things up.”
It is
hard to disagree with her, and it is crucial to note that Ms Bilkhu is referring
to the brave few who have come forward in the hope that, in so doing, they will
help to combat the practice. Their stories are only the tip of the iceberg.
Another organisation, Karma Nirvana, which runs a crisis helpline for women in
such situations, says:
“We believe the prevalence of sex-selective abortion in the
UK is currently under-reported and this has been the case for many years. We
have received, and continue to receive, calls from victims who are pressured to
identify the gender of the child for the purposes of identifying if it is a
girl. Victims express how they are then pressured by family members to abort the
child and to give reasons other than sex selection and how they face abuse if
they refuse to request this or abort.”
To those
who argue that there is no evidence of sex-selective abortion in the UK, I pose
a question: what reason do we have to doubt the word of these organisations? If
the testimony of these women and those who work with them is not enough,
consider the statement of the GP and former BPAS consultant, Dr Vincent Argent,
who said he had “no doubt” that this was a problem in the UK and that there
were
“an awful lot of covert sex-selective abortions going
on.”
Indeed,
I am told that some hospitals operate a policy of not telling the women the sex
of their baby for fear that it will lead to a sex-selective abortion.We can no longer ignore the fact that sex-selective abortion is a reality in the UK. Lest anyone think that this is an issue that applies only in certain communities, they should consider the tragic fact that the words “family balancing” are heard with increasing frequency and understanding across the country.
Thankfully, at the moment, countrywide analyses of birth data do not seem to show significant gender imbalances, but sex-selective abortion is clearly happening. Surely we cannot be saying that we will do nothing until the statistics show a national skewing in gender ratios, as in other countries. That would be wrong. How many more women must come forward before we take action? The time at which Government support should have been offered to women such as Rupinder and Uraj passed long ago, which is why I, and other colleagues, have brought this Bill to the House today.
4 Nov 2014 : Column 679
The Bill is sponsored by 11 female MPs from all parts of the House and supported by a large number of other MPs. Today, I wish to place on record my thanks to those MPs, including: the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), for Salisbury (John Glen), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson), for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) and for North Somerset (Dr Fox). All of them support this Bill and I sincerely thank them for that.
Clause 1 would send a clear signal that abortion for gender is not permissible under UK law, clearing up considerable confusion. Subsection (2) would make it clear that the clarification relates only to sex-selective abortions, therefore putting the Bill squarely in line with the Government’s interpretation of the Abortion Act. Clause 2 obliges the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that the law is being upheld. That will enable the Government to think about ways to help such women.
This month, for the first time, the UK has dropped out of the gender equality top 20. It is a further damning indictment of our commitment to female parity that we allow national institutions to contradict the Government on an illegal practice that predominantly affects girls. Even worse, we are choosing to ignore the evidence of women who have gone on the record and who have suffered under this appalling practice. This has gone on long enough. We must now act. As an editorial in The Independent said in January:
“Sex-selective abortion is barbaric and socially
destructive.”
This
Bill would be a step on the way to addressing this tragic and discriminatory
practice and the first and most fundamental form of violence against women and
girls. I commend it to the House.Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
The House divided:
Ayes 181, Noes 1.
_____________________________________________________
Abortion reform call as record number of babies survive birth at 23 weeks
·
·
AT LEAST 120 babies born during week 23 of apregnancy — the last week when abortions on demand are legal — have survived in the past four years, The Sunday Times can reveal.
New figures show the number of babies who are born before the 24-week legal abortion limit and survive is rising at large hospitals with specialist doctors. The real number of week 23 babies who survived is likely to be higher, as it is based on a sample of 25 hospitals that replied to a request under freedom of information laws.
The disclosure will revive the debate over the legal limit for abortion. In 2008, MPs voted against moves to reduce the limit to 22 or 20 weeks. Healthy babies can be aborted legally on demand up to 24 weeks into the pregnancy.
The new figures show that at Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, six of eight babies born at 23 weeks and admitted to the neonatal unit for treatment last year survived.
Six of seven babies born at 23 weeks at University College London Hospitals (UCLH) and given treatment to save them survived. All five born at 23 weeks at North Bristol NHS Trust last year also lived.
In 2011, 565 babies were aborted at 23 weeks’ gestation when they would have had a chance of survival.
Nationally, however, and particularly in smaller hospitals, the survival figures are lower. The EPICure study, published in 2012 and based on births in 2006, found that just 19% of babies born at 23 weeks survived. The research also found high levels of disability among babies born at 23 weeks.
These statistics are used by some to defend the abortion limit, arguing the survival rate remains poor. The figures obtained by The Sunday Times show that, even in the past four years, at some trusts where up to eight babies have been born at 23 weeks, none has lived.
Some leading neonatologists argue, however, that where treatment is centralised in large hospitals with specialist expertise, the survival rate is high and increasing.
Dr Ngozi Edi-Osagie, clinical director of neonatal services at Central Manchester University Hospitals, said: “It is a concentration of expertise, both in medical and nursing, that contribute to making a difference in survival at this very low gestation.” She fears a pessimistic view harms such babies’ prospects. “If you say that they don’t survive, they won’t,” she said.
At UCLH, 20 of the 26 babies born at 23 weeks between 2010 and 2013 and given active treatment to keep them alive survived. At North Bristol NHS Trust, 15 of the 19 babies born at 23 weeks between 2011 and July this year survived; and at Central Manchester University Hospitals, the figure was 10 of 16 over the same period. Six of the 11 babies born at 23 weeks at Barts Health NHS Trust in London and admitted to the neonatal units in the two years between 2012 and 2014 also survived.
Fiona Bruce, Conservative MP and member of the all-party pro-life group, said: “I do not understand why there is not more outcry about the fact that we allow viable babies to be aborted.
“The new figures support what we have known for a while: that advances in pre-natal care make a mockery of our 24-week abortion limit.”
_________________________________________________________________________________
Fiona Bruce Speaks against the change of law which could potentially introuduce a technique for 'designer babies' on the Today Programme on Radio 4 4/06/2014
link - starts at 1:19:20 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b045bsc8Abortion Statistics Bill Speech - 16th April 2013
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to compile statistics on gender ratios of foetuses aborted in the United Kingdom, and where available overseas; and for connected purposes.
It is a tragedy that, in some countries, the words “It’s a girl” are not always a source of joy but sometimes of danger. The abortion of baby girls occurs in huge numbers simply because of their gender. The UN states that it is a problem of “genocide proportions”, with one expert estimating that gendercide has cost the lives of about 200 million women and girls worldwide over the past 30 years.The practice is pervasive in China. The country’s one-child policy and its traditional preference for boys have led to widespread abandonment, infanticide and forced abortions. China now has 37 million more young males than females. We hear of towns and villages where young men outnumber young women by up to 30:1. Quoting China’s official figures, the Financial Times stated recently that there have been 330 million abortions since the one-child policy was introduced—a policy tragically indirectly aided and abetted for many years by funds provided by successive British Governments.
Similarly, there are markedly more males than females in India, with various regions facing serious and growing gender imbalances. The murder of a student who was gang-raped on a Delhi bus at the end of last year sparked outrage across India and shone a spotlight on the place of women in Indian society. That and the country’s long history of expensive dowry gifts on the marriage of a daughter are among the factors that are resulting in the illegal but widespread practice of female gendercide.
Female gendercide in such countries is fuelling human trafficking and sexual slavery. It is resulting in tragic practices such as the kidnapping, sale and imprisonment of young girls in places far from their home towns to act as so-called “wives”. Such avoidance of female births is gender discrimination in its worst form. It constitutes violence against women even before they have a chance to live.
Why am I relating these tragic situations in this place today, when so many Members are well aware of them and condemn them? The reason is that if we are to condemn gendercide in countries such as China and India, we must be ready to condemn and challenge any suggestion that gendercide is taking place in the UK. I acknowledge and respect the wide range of sincerely held views on abortion, but such wider discussions are not the subject of this ten-minute rule motion. The motion seeks to draw the House’s attention to indications that illegal gendercide appears to be taking place in this country. I hope that the House can unite in registering profound shock at even the possibility that that it is happening, in whatever proportion.
The House will have seen early-day motion 936, an all-party motion that I tabled on this topic. It has attracted more than 50 supportive signatures. I am
therefore confident that the concerns about this issue are shared by a number of Members from all parties in the House.
On 8 January, the Department of Health confirmed in a written answer to my noble Friend Lord Alton of Liverpool that there are discrepancies in the balance between the number of boys and girls born in the UK to some groups of women that
“potentially fall outside of the range considered possible without intervention.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 January 2013; Vol. 742, c. WA2.]
That indicates that there may be evidence that a significant number of abortions are taking place on the grounds of gender or sex selection, a practice that is wholly illegal in this country. Any doctor who performed a termination on that basis would potentially be committing a criminal offence.I welcome the decision of Ranjit Bikhu and other British Asian women to establish a campaign to challenge anti-girl and anti-life attitudes and practices. It must never be a matter of choice to end the life of a girl merely because of her gender.
An investigation by The Daily Telegraph in 2012 uncovered strong evidence, including filmed evidence, that doctors at some British clinics are agreeing to terminate pregnancies by arranging abortions on the grounds of gender and to produce the relevant paperwork. The investigation also exposed a practice termed “family balancing”, with boys being aborted too, thus stretching the possibility of gendercide taking place in the UK well beyond certain cultural groups. One doctor, highly experienced in this field, said he believes the practice is “fairly widespread”.
Technological advancements in prenatal diagnostic tests now enable the gender of a fetus to be determined at 10 weeks’ gestation. As that technology continues to develop and becomes widely available, there is much concern that it will increase requests for abortions when the gender of an unborn child is not what a mother or father were hoping for.
My Bill reminds the police and the Crown Prosecution Service that abortion on the grounds of gender is illegal in this country, and it calls on the Department of Health to put in place procedures to record the gender of babies aborted under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967, once the sex can be determined. The Bill would also impose tougher penalties on anyone found to have facilitated the abortion of a child because of its gender, or made arrangements to travel overseas for such an outcome. In addition, it calls for further consideration of the practice and implications of the wide, deeply concerning and, in some countries, extensive practice of female gendercide overseas.
Here in the United Kingdom, a country that prides itself on striving for gender equality and tackling discrimination in all its forms, any indication of this most fundamental form of gender discrimination and violence against women must surely be investigated further. A key purpose of my Bill is to highlight concerns about abortion on the grounds of sex selection taking place in the UK, and to remind us all, whether regulators, prosecuting authorities, doctors, the Department of Health or, crucially, Ministers, that we cannot turn a blind eye to the issue and should be proactive in preventing, challenging and stopping it as something that is wholly unacceptable in the UK, as well as abroad.
Before I say “I commend this Bill to the House”, this would until yesterday have been the end of my speech. Quite remarkably, however, bearing in mind the fact that my Bill is called the Abortion Statistics Bill as set down several weeks ago, just yesterday the Department of Health announced a consultation on abortion statistics and their publication. I would flatter myself by thinking there was any connection; none the less it gives me the opportunity to mention the issue. I understand that the Department of Health is seeking the public’s view on the publication of abortion statistics, in order—and I quote from its overview—
“to ensure that the reports remain relevant and useful.”
In the light of the causes for concern that I have highlighted today, I trust that the Department will consider including in those statistics a record of the gender of babies aborted, if ascertainable. I hope that many responses by the public to the consultation will support that call.Finally, in further support of my motion, I draw the House’s attention to the recent call by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for members states to
“collect the sex ratio at birth, monitor its development and take prompt action to tackle possible imbalances.”
I understand that the Department of Health is currently finalising its response to the Assembly on that issue, and I note the comment from the Health Minister Earl Howe that
“this is an important piece of work and demonstrates how seriously this issue is being taken not just in this country but across Europe.”
Let us ensure that we lead the way in monitoring, challenging and—most important—preventing this deeply worrying practice. I commend this Bill to the House.Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Fiona Bruce, Dr Thérèse Coffey, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Mrs Mary Glindon, Jim Dobbin, Robert Flello, Pat Glass, Mr Virendra Sharma, Jim Shannon, Rosie Cooper, Daniel Kawczynski and Jeremy Lefroy present the Bill.
Fiona Bruce accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April, and to be printed (Bill 158).
