David Steel, a former Liberal party leader, reflected on the historical debate surrounding bodily autonomy, suggesting that future generations might grasp the absurdity of denying fundamental rights. His perspective relates to both the 1967 Abortion Act he championed and the current assisted dying legislation, evoking parallels in societal progress and legal transformation over 57 years.
Steel compared the arguments against the Abortion Act, particularly fears about a slippery slope, to those currently used against assisted dying, arguing that similar fears about abortion have not materialized despite legislation evolving. He noted that, while abortion regulations have changed, the fundamental criteria for access have largely remained intact, demonstrating the caution with which legislative changes can be approached.
The original Abortion Act allowed terminations at under 28 weeks under specific circumstances, with its parameters evolving through subsequent legal changes, yet maintaining a focus on safeguarding women's health. This historical context serves as a precedential backdrop, illustrating that legislative intent can preserve core values even as societal norms shift.
In 1990, the Abortion Act was tightened, reducing the gestation limit to 24 weeks, underscoring the significance of viability in legal discussions surrounding abortion. By 2022, advancements in medical practice and public health considerations led to a pivotal policy shift, allowing early medical abortion at home—indicative of evolving societal perspectives towards reproductive rights.
Collection
[
|
...
]