The Last Word on Today FM

A fellow “feminist thinktank extraordinaire” (to quote Aoife) Jane Ruffino will be on Today FM at around twenty to five talking to a woman who believes that men need to be saved from the woman of this world. She’s a terrible right wing neocon lonny bin! Listen if you get a chance and text/mail support for Jane.

Best of luck, Jane! Ill be casting spells to turn evil Kathleen into a toad!

And if youre interested in reading more about Kathleen: here is a transcript of a radio interview she did promoting her “book”

Waving her white bra in defense of men, nationally syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker claims in her latest book, Save the Males, that maleness and fatherhood are under siege in America. But, as we soon learn, this provocative, sassy, and laugh-out-loud book is, at least in part, a loving tribute to Parker’s own father.

Listen in as Kathleen Parker discusses Save the Males with Karen Spears Zacharias, author of the forthcoming Where’s Your JesusNow?

Q: When we think of voiceless victims, the male gender doesn’t usually come to mind, unless he’s under the age of 8. Why would an accomplished, articulate woman like yourself want to write a book defending males?

A: First of all, thank you for that generous description. It’s very simple. I was raised by my single father after my mother died and I’ve helped raise three boys. That experience caused me to see things from the male perspective and it’s not looking so good out there. Save the Males is an attempt to shine a light on a constellation of dots, which, once connected, reveal a cultural mosaic that is anti-male. If trends continue on their present trajectory, it seems to me that the American family – the rock upon which this nation was built – will be irreparably damaged. I agree with the great journalist Midge Decter, who once said that families don’t make you happy; they make you human. They are necessary, not only for raising children with character and purpose, but also for the continued strength of our country. A nation of fractured families is nation in trouble, vulnerable not only to external forces but also to increased government control as family autonomy is surrendered incrementally to “helpful” agents of the state.

Q:You speak of a new feminism. What do you mean by that? What’s wrong with the old one?

A: We’re now in the third wave of feminism. Distilled, the first wave gave us the vote; the second gave us divorce and jobs; the third is helping us become porn stars. Look, I’m a feminist; you’re a feminist. But the feminism we grew up with that aimed to make the world a more female-friendly place has morphed in a movement that is decidedly hostile toward males and manhood. It’s time for a fourth wave that recognizes the important work feminism still has to do in the larger world where women have no rights, but also acknowledges the contributions men have made toward our own freedoms. Women do have enemies in the world, but they are not men of the West.

Q: What do you think are the three greatest misconceptions about males that we liberated woman are passing along to our daughters?

A:        1. That men are to blame for all that’s wrong with the world;

2. That men are essentially violent, dumb and irresponsible;

3. That we can live without them.

Q:  Didn’t you grow up in that generation of southern women that were reading Marabella Morgan’s The Total Woman? You’re not suggesting we ought to meet our men at the door wrapped in cellophane are you?

A: Ha, now there’s a scary thought. I did grow up in the olden days when women were attentive to men in traditional ways. They didn’t have their own stripper pole in the living room, but they might have had dinner ready in the kitchen. I witnessed multiple variations on the domestic front as my father was a serial husband  – married four times after my mother died at age 31. What can I say? He was a dazzler – nectar to women – but also a gentleman. Apparently, he thought you had to marry a woman with whom you were familiar. I’m making some assumptions here.

But here’s the thing. Despite all those marriages, only two of which took place while I was officially a child, my father mostly raised me and he groomed me to be a feminist. That is, independent and self-sufficient – and in no way subservient to a man. My only conclusion about how women ought to treat men is with respect and the occasional unsolicited kindness. Here’s what I’ve discovered living mostly among men my entire life: Men are human. They like to be appreciated, loved, and greeted not necessarily in cellophane, but with a smile. How hard is that? For some reason, women have come to believe that if they fix a man a sandwich or sew on a button, they’ve surrendered a piece of their autonomy. For whatever reason, Southern women seem not to mind as much.

Q: Tell us about your father and the way in which he’s shaped your attitude toward men.

A. Let me answer by painting you a picture with a little more texture. As I hinted before, my father was handsome, brilliant and hilarious. This isn’t just an adoring daughter talking. There’s a pretty significant consensus on those points. That also doesn’t mean he was perfect – five wives suggests some flaws – but he was a splendid father whose sacrifices I didn’t begin to appreciate until I became a parent.

He became a single parent at age 31, ten years after his marriage to my mother on his 21st birthday while he was a pilot in the Army Air Corps. She died of heart failure as a consequence of having had rheumatic fever before the discovery of Penicillin – and left  him with a three-year-old girl and a six-year-old boy. In a devastating instant, this young man became both mother and father. I forgave him all his marital mistakes because it comforted me to think that he simply couldn’t replace my mother. A motherless girl needs to believe that.

From the time I was 12 until I left for college, it was just us two except for a brief, one-year marriage. Each day after school, I joined him at his law office where I did my homework until he finished up. Once home, we convened in the kitchen where he cooked while I perched on a wooden stool peeling potatoes. We talked.

In that ritualized communion, I learned many useful lessons about the opposite sex. I learned that men like to talk while doing something else. I learned that good men do hard things without asking for anything return. I learned that men have big hearts that are often hurt and broken. That they’re smart and wise and can even understand the pressing concerns of teenaged girls. I learned that fathers adore their children and will sacrifice anything to help them succeed. I learned that fathers will lay their lives down for their children. I learned that men are capable of honor, valor, compassion and courage and that they are essential to instilling those virtues in their sons and daughters.

Q: Can men become overly domesticated? If so, in what ways do you see that happening?

A: The current culture essentially wants to make men more like women, while pushing women to be more like men. I can’t really figure out why this is desirable, though apparently the drive toward these ends is attached to radical feminism’s idea of equality. The thinking seems to be that if we can get enough men wearing aprons – and enough women in combat – then equality will have been accomplished. What we fail to take into account is that human nature is only so malleable. These experiments ultimately will fail, but we may have to sit through a few generations of absurdity. This is good for columnists, but bad for kids.

Q:  I just read a book that’s on the NYT Bestseller list that portrays God as a woman. I really like that notion, that God is beyond gender, but there were several references in that book suggesting that if women ran the world, we’d all be a lot better off. What does an egalitarian society look like to you?

A: I guess it looks like my home, where my husband and I are co-god and –goddess, equal partners in every respect. That doesn’t mean we each perform equal portions of a given “chore” because that’s never going to happen. We’re different. We have different gifts and talents. I leave the money to him because he’s got a business mind. (He’s a finance/banking attorney who helps businesses get started.) I do the cooking because I’m good at it and enjoy it. This is not a plot to keep women in the kitchen and men in charge of the purse strings. It’s about doing what makes sense. I guess we’re implementarians. When it comes to who wins and who loses, we generally skip the argument and let the one who cares most take the day. Of course, we’ve been practicing marriage for a long time (20 years). You learn to pick your battles.

In the larger world, an egalitarian society would recognize – and celebrate – the differences between the sexes and not reduce all transactions to a zero sum game. Equal opportunity and equal protection under the law, but no assumption of interchangeability.

Q: In defense of fathers, you challenge the family court system. Do you think the courts are archaic in their belief that children are almost always better off with mothers?

A: I challenge the family court notion that children don’t need fathers more than 50 days a year, which is the average number of days the child of divorced parents sees his/her non-custodial parent, usually the father. That’s insane. How is it that a man and woman who loved each other enough to marry and have children should now hate each other enough to deny a child half of his/her identity?

I’ve been divorced, have first-hand experience with single parenthood, and have been a stepparent, so I’m not casting aspersions here. I know how hard all of this is. But to me, the most compelling issue – more important than adult feelings – is that children know they’re loved by both of their parents and that they have equal access to both, assuming there are no compelling reasons for them not to.

That said, I also think that parents need to work these things out between themselves, if possible. Clearly, a baby needs to be close to Mom in the tender years, not to the exclusion of Dad but within sensible boundaries. We know this absolutely when we’re all under the same roof. Needs don’t change with address labels. At other ages, little boys need more time with Dad than with Mom. You can’t create absolute formulas that will work for every child and every couple, which is why courts can’t ever solve this problem. Parents have to be grown-ups and do the right thing for the kids they both love. I have ultimate faith in reasonable people behaving reasonably, but we may have to eliminate lawyers and judges from the equation.

I was talking to a friend who lives near her ex-husband so that their children can easily go from one house to the other. Their shared parenting isn’t the result of a court decree or a cultural manifesto; it’s common sense based on a shared, if separated, love. This arrangement also isn’t the adults’ fondest dream come true, you can be sure. But as my friend said, whenever she puts the children’s interests first, she always makes the right decision.

Q:  Quoting WalkerPercy, you’ve said that we need to repent from labels. What do you mean by that?

A: I mean that when we label each other and ourselves – we’re either liberal or conservative, feminist or whatever – we tend to get locked into prescribed ways of thinking and responding. Real communication breaks down. I’d rather we ditch our –isms and –ologies and focus on our humanness.

Q: You’ve taken a lot of heat for coming to the defense of males, haven’t you? Why do you think there is so much anger toward men in America?

A: Taking heat is part of the job description when you’re a columnist. I’ve been defending the male of our species ever since I gave birth to a boy. Until then, I had been a fire-breathing feminist and bought everything I had been taught and told. God has an eye for certitude and turned the kliegs on mine. Becoming mother to a boy was a revelation of sorts and I began to see the world through guy eyes. It never looked the same after that and I couldn’t countenance a world that was so hostile toward my boy. It’s pretty easy to take heat when your righteousness is based in ancient wisdom and fueled by love for another.

Q: What’s the source of so much anger toward men?

A: Two things: history and our tendency to universalize our own experience. Men have ruled the world since the dawn of time and women are ticked off about some of man’s less admirable accomplishments. On balance, I think we can see that the good outweighs the bad. On a less global scale, women who have been hurt in bad marriages find company among others who share their belief that their experience is a microcosm of the larger human experiment. One man isn’t bad; all men are. Soon the specific is generalized and a movement grows around shared anger.

The anger is understandable in some cases, but the globalization of that anger is mostly fashionable. The culture applauds both the anger and the hostility it breeds to the detriment of the next generation of boys, who, like my own, were born innocent – and the girls who in their true hearts really do like boys.

Q:  You’re married, right? Did he give you any input on the book? Did you take his advice?

A: My husband is a prince, totally supportive of everything I do and patient with my sometimes tightly wound personality. He is my absolute best friend, the guy I never tire of talking to, and the grown up I know I can count on. As I tell our boys, I always know he’ll do the right thing. That’s the definition of manliness in my book. He mostly influenced the book by constantly reinforcing my firm belief that men are essentially good.

Poetry is strange

Ive never written a poem in less than 3 minutes. Its like they write me. I never censor them or rewrite anything, ever, so when I post poetry here please accept that it comes directly from the heart, with no reasoned rewriting, fune tuning, making it anything other than a raw snapshot of experience.

I wrote this this morning about the Goddess conference.

Its called Snake Maiden

I slowly

Dip my toe into your pools of awakening

She glides on her belly towards me and coils at my feel

She hisses deep and slowly, protector, guide, mother

I breathe

Frightened I rub my eyes

See the women before me dance, weep, age, grow

See them play like children, goddesses awakened, their bodies decorated with fine silks

Watch the tears flow into your pools

Guide me through the rolling hills of your body

Walk with me as I climb the steepness of your hips

Watch over and protect me as I play in your garden

I draw strength from your earth

We dance in the moonlight by your fires

We awaken at night

We dance in delight

***************************************************

Goddess worship, veggie sausage rolls and glastonbury

Ive just returned from an incredible week in Glastonbury, at the Goddess conference which takes place there every year.

I met some really increidble people, but was also slightly spooked by some of the participants. I wonder if its the nature of feminist spirituality to attract some strange folk – and also wonder about the concept of power. Power is a big theme in witchcraft of many kinds, not least of all goddess-witchcraft, and it is generally ill-defined power at that. Its frightening then, to realise that many women get into this sort of spiritual path because of their seeming lack of power in their day to day lives… and yet are seeking out some other form of power which may in fact be destructive.

I felt very vulnerable at certain times because of the power dynamics at the conference (which is a mysnomer, it was really more of a retreat). I felt the energy of many of these women to be overwhelming, and that many people there were carrying a lot of grief and powerlessness.

Luckily to offset this I met 3 incredible women from the UK and Canada, who were amazing to around – real soul sisters… this makes me happy. We ate veggie sausage rolls, bookshoped, drank wine and saw some beautiful sacred landscape.

Yeah, it was a beautiful week. Ive written a poem about it which I shall post in a bit.

Movie “Teeth” – The Myth of Vagina Dentata exposed? Or more gynaphobia?

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2287275,00.html#article_continue

Its about the movie teeth – which is about a woman who is raped and has teeth inside her vagina. Insane premise for a film… and makes for very unsettling reading. The director claims to have made the film with feminist intent has noted that we live in a world where “women are raped, forcibly circumcised, so maybe Dawn is an example of nature adapting to this male-dominated world”.
However, I feel it is a perfect illustration through the not so lofty medium of popular culture, of gynaphobia and the myth of vagina dentata:

The myth of the vagina dentata, or vagina with teeth, comes from primitive masculine dreads of the “mysteries” of women and sexual union. It is connected to castration anxiety, and more generally it relates to fears of weakness, impotence, or annihilation by incorporation (connected to unconscious notions of “returning to the womb” for a Freudian analysis – bleaugh to Freud).

From a contemporary, feminist, psychoanalytic perspective, Elizabeth Grosz writes:

“The fantasy of the vagina dentata, of the non-human status of woman as android, vampire or animal, the identification of female sexuality as voracious, insatiable, enigmatic, invisible and unknowable, cold, calculating, instrumental, castrator/decapitator of the male, dissimulatress or fake, predatory, engulfing mother, preying on male weakness, are all consequences of the ways in which male orgasm has functioned as the measure and representative of all sexualities and all modes of erotic encounter.” (See her article on “Animal Sex”)

I think the movie sounds like a really really bad premise and a really bad delivery. Ill go see it and report back.

Shocking (??!!) new figures in today’s Irish Times – women do more work in the home… (seriously?!)

The ESRI and the Equality authority today released the results of their latest survey done in Ireland that
showed women do 37 minutes more work, both employment and housework, than men. Not that this is in any way surprising or alarming, but it is interesting to see public dbate stimulated on this issue, in particular as there are both local and european elections this year, policy makers have their ear to the ground in many ways on this issue. However, it does seem to me that in temrs of unpaid labour it fails to realy grasp the extent to which that is dominated by women and it seems a little misleading to say that women work 39 minutes more a day when that may be 4 hours unpaid vs 4 hous overtime for a man.

The full text of the article is here.

In a recent study in the United States, however, the figures are more startling.
This article is on married couples sharing housework, and gives a breakdown of how much
work women do around the house compared to men. I also think it shows just how set in its ways society is, that a couple has to go to such great lengths (pie charts, therapy and mentoring) to ensure that the
mother isn’t left doing the majority of the housework. Screams. Here is the full text.

 

 

Female Ejaculation….

So sorry to all of you looking for porn, Im afraid this post is more of an analysis. Try again…

Anyway, if youre still with me, Im assuming youre not looking for porn but rather are interested in the mysterious subject of female ejaculation and all its secrets. This is something Ive only recently been thinking about as a female friend told me of her adventures in the area. I had, previously, heard arguements such as

“its a myth”

“its impossible”

“only some women can do it”

“its actually urine”

Well, I did my research and managed to find a few resources teaching women how to do it (not many, but they are there) – wikipedia; babeland; the clitoris and others.

Here is a wonderful extract from an essay which sums up the attitude in patriarchal society to female bodily fluids in general.

Female Body Fluids

“Before discussing female ejaculation I will first address female body fluids in general. Our society, as well as most others, views all form of liquid that are produced by the female body with great disdain. Women are not permitted to engage in any activity that would expose others to their body fluids, and they are viewed as less than feminine and desirable if they do. Female body fluids are considered harmful by many and there are societies in which menstruating women are thought to cause crops to fail and livestock to die. This creates a significant barrier to sexual pleasure for women, as female body fluids are a normal and necessary part of sex.

Women are expected to maintain a dry pristine appearance regardless of the activities they participate in. Mothers once told their daughters it was unwise to engage in sports, as boys would see them sweaty and disheveled, and this was seen as unattractive. Today, deodorant and antiperspirant ads drive home the idea, “Do not let them see you sweat.” Women are told they need special stronger deodorants made specially for them. Tampon and sanitary napkin advertising often emphasizes the product’s ability to conceal a woman’s menstruation from others more than their primary task of absorbing menses; yet in the process they remind us that women do menstruate. Most women would prefer to have their fingernails ripped out one by one rather than be seen having an “accident,” menstruating in public. Society and the media serve to create a barrier between women and their sexual pleasure.

Sweaty men are seen as sexual,  virlie.  Their manhood is measured by their ability to produce large quantities of semen. They write their name in the snow with their urine and see who can ejaculate the furthest. For men making a mess with their ejaculate is seen as unavoidable, normal, and is never questioned. It is even idolized in adult movies. Men can ejaculate on the face, in the mouth, and on and in the body of their partner and it is seen as normal and desirable. If a woman gets her body fluids on her partner that is another story, she has made a dirty mess. This is an interesting double standard. If a man can cover his partner with his body fluids a woman should be able to do the same.

Female sexuality is marred by these unwritten laws. Many women produce relatively large amounts of body fluids during sex. Especially if they are highly aroused for an extended period of time and/or experience female ejaculation. It is hard to relax and enjoy sex if you are worried about sweating heavily or producing too much vaginal lubrication. Since women have no control over the release of these body fluids some avoid sex all together rather than risk being seen as less than feminine by their partner.

Before a woman can learn to ejaculate, enjoy ejaculating, and enjoy sex in general she must accept all her bodily fluids as normal. She must not question the nature or quantity of her wetness, be it sweat, vaginal lubrication, menses, ejaculate, or liquid from her bladder. These fluids are a normal and natural part of women’s lives. There is nothing that is inherently bad or harmful about them. A woman cannot allow herself to ejaculate and experience potentially earth-shattering orgasms if she cannot let go when the pressure or urge to ejaculate arises. Ladies, give yourself permission to get wet and messy. Give yourself permission to have fun and enjoy sex.

As a result of the taboos concerning female body fluids the main motivation behind the studies into female ejaculation appears to be the determination of whether or not the expelled fluid is from the bladder. Some believe that if a woman ejaculates a liquid that is not from her bladder she is normal, but if is from her bladder then she has a medical problem and is abnormal. Why the great debate over the exact nature of this fluid squirting from women’s bodies? Does it really matter whether it is liquid from the bladder or ejaculate? If a woman gets a thrill out of squirting liquid from her bladder at the moment of orgasm are we to say she has a problem? Do we mean to take this pleasure away from her? If a woman squirts liquid from her bladder at the moment of orgasm, let her, if she ejaculates uncontrollably, so be it. It is not our place to judge a woman’s sexual pleasure.”

It got me wondering, why is this subject such a taboo? It is such a unique and exciting part of female sexuality, and yet most people I know don’t do it, never heard of it, havent tried to, etc. There is a squemishness about it. Its associated with pornstars and there are myths around how hard it is to do. And yet any woman who has done it extolls the virtues of it and emphasises the amazing dimension it introduces to their expression of their sexuality.

So the question Im asking is: why is there such silence around this issue? Why arent women everywhere taught that this can be a part of their sexual expression? why isn’t it in all the women’s magazines like cosmo, etc who are normally so quick to tell us how to “Please Our Man”?

This, amongst other things, irks me. Comments welcome….

Yoghurt: The official food of women

I thought this was hilarious….

And unfortunately true. I wonder why my feminist-radar never picked up on this before

*bad feminist* – slap myself on the hand repeatedly.

Abortion term limits to remain the same

In the attempt to cut the UK time limit for abortion, common sense and science prevailed over moral judgements… thankfully. Its time we realised how difficult it is for women to have a late term abortion and supported them in this time instead of berating them and demonising them for their decision.

Interestingly, a Progressive Democrat councillor John Kenny has emerged as a supporter of legislating on this issue, and Ive included his letter below. Brave words indeed, from a party traditionally conservative on this issue. Ive emailed him an encouraging letter as I believe the opposition (anti-choice movement) will certainly have him pestered and I’d imagine he needs all the encouragement he can get. Here is him email should you wish to make contact,

john.kenny@progressivedemocratsdse.com

· Attempt to cut UK time limit for abortion defeated

BRITAIN: AN attempt to cut the time-limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 12 weeks, was defeated in the British House of Commons last night. Voting was 71 to 393, a majority of 322.

Health minister Dawn Primarolo said there was no scientific evidence to warrant a reduction in the time limit. And she accused those opposed to abortion of trying to prevent it by moving a series of incremental reductions in the time limit.

“The upper limit was set by parliament in 1990 at 24 weeks because scientific evidence at the time was that the threshold of viability had increased.

“It has always been linked to the potential viability of the foetus outside of the womb. That was the case in 1967. It was the case in 1990 and certainly the case now.”

She warned that reducing the limit would force a small number of women who sought late abortions to go elsewhere.

Former Conservative minister Ann Widdecombe asked if this should be the determining factor when, since 1990, there was a substantial body of evidence about foetal pain and distress.

Ms Primarolo said it was a difficult decision but there was no evidence that the viability threshold had changed.

“Wouldn’t it be appalling if we drove women back to where they were before the 1967 Act,” she said.

Ms Primarolo also rejected calls to remove disability as a ground for abortion, asking: “Is it right to force a woman to carry a child (with a serious handicap) until it dies in the womb or is born with no chance of survival?”

Labour’s Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley) warned arguments over who was right and wrong could leave out the person at the centre of the debate – the mother.

She said: “All too often the woman is left out of this discussion – she becomes invisible – and women have different moral views on whether abortion is acceptable and if so the circumstances in which it is acceptable.”

Women never took the decision to have an abortion lightly, she added, saying it was “always a difficult decision”.

And she said moral views on the subject were so divided that “we should not seek to impose our views on each other”.

Ms Mallaber also warned that a reduction in the limit to 16 weeks could lead to an increase in women seeking “backstreet abortions”.

Reducing the limit to 20 or 22 weeks could also lead to some women being “panicked” into having abortions rather than carrying the baby to term.- (PA)

· Letter: Legislating for abortion

Madam, – This week the law governing abortion for Irish women faces a crucial vote on whether to reduce the cut-off period from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. The fact that this vote will take place in the parliament of the United Kingdom once again highlights the political establishment’s inaction on the issue of abortion.

To be fair to the former Tánaiste, Minister for Justice and Attorney General Michael McDowell, he at least put forward an amendment to the Constitution which the people rejected in 2002. However, the time has now come to put in place legislation to deal with the issue.

It is estimated that 5,000 Irish women travel to the UK every year to have abortions. We can continue to allow UK politicians to decide the conditions under which these women face their terrible ordeal or we can do the right thing by the women of Ireland and decide on abortion laws ourselves.

It is time to drop the political mantra about abortion being “too divisive” for Irish people to debate. Politics should be about taking action and making decisions. The Irish women forced to travel to the UK deserve that at least. – Yours, etc,

Cllr JOHN KENNY

(Progressive Democrats),

Monkstown Valley,

Co Dublin.

Body image and the Campaign for Real Beauty???

I attended the Women’s Studies conference last Friday at UCD. It was an amazing day and I met some really great women. The conference was entitled What Ivory Towers: Gender, Body and Sexuality. The conference was running concurrent to the launch of Paula Fagan’s (from Women’s Aid) research project on Domestic Violence and Migrant women .

I presented a paper on my PhD research and heard from a great many women and men scholars of feminism and gender/body issues.

The main theme which I left the conference musing over for days was the prevailing  body issues subject. One woman in particular, Luna Dolezal, from the department of Philosophy in UCD presented on the campaign for real beauty. Her paper was fascinating as we examined the heteronormative images of women who were supposedly representing ‘real’ women – and yet were clearly able-bodied, slim, symmetrical, and had enviable bodies! They were just not stick thin – although they were very slim – and indeed have become slimmer (if youve seen the 6-packs on the new summer body glow ads – you’ll see what I mean).

The most striking part of this exploration was the fact that Dove are owned by Glaxo Smith Klien. I have ethical issues with this crowd for various reasons I try to Girlcott them (animal testing et al). But they also own SlimFast – and at the same time theyre campaigning for ‘real’ beauty, they also ran a slimfast ad which preyed mercilessly on the insecurities of women and the Normate – the perfect ‘normal’ body.

The ‘normal’ girls in the Dove Ads.

The teeny-tiny waist in the Slim Fast ad.

Im baffled. Capitalism is using our lack of self esteem against us – dont let it sell us a false sense of sisterhood.

Reform of British Abortion Laws will affect Irish women

The law on British Abortion Term limits is under fire at the moment, and those who will be impacted the most are almost certainly the most vulnerable – of which many are Irish women. Most women will not ‘choose’ to have a late term abortion, in most cases a later term abortion than 20 weeks is usually due to fatal foetal anomalies, restrictive laws in the country of origin, a diagnosis of, for example, cancer in the woman. The figures for late term abortions are really very low – indicating it is generally those who are at risk or vulnerable who are forced to wait due to visa restrictions in the case of refugees and asylum seekers, or those for whom the pregnancy has become a crisis, eg those who find they have fatal foetal abnormalities. See the full article below.

Law change would affect Irish seeking abortions by Susan Mitchell, Sunday Business Post

Proposals to reform abortion laws in Britain could have major repercussions for the more than 6,000 Irish women who travel to Britain for terminations each year, according to the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA).

An alliance of pro-life MPs, traditionalists and Catholic backbenchers want to reduce the time limit at which it is legal to have an abortion from 24 to 22weeks or less. Niall Behan, chief executive of the IFPA, said that any reduction in the time limit would have the greatest impact on women carrying foetuses with severe or fatal abnormalities.

Behan said that most women who decided to terminate their pregnancies did so before 20 weeks gestation, but that severe and fatal foetal abnormalities were often not detected until 18 or 19weeks into a pregnancy.

‘‘In those circumstances, women often have a further scan or a check to look at the options that may be available,’’ Behan said.

‘‘Any reduction in the time limit would only give a woman, or indeed a couple, a one-week window to make a decision. More time is needed under those circumstances and I would have grave fears that decisions would be rushed.”

Behan said that asylum seekers living in Ireland could also be affected, as he had come across a number of cases in which asylum seekers had difficulties securing papers to travel to Britain, meaning that they also presented relatively late for a termination.

Anti-abortion activists argue that Britain has an excessively late cut-off point for abortion. Two-thirds of EU countries have a time limit lower than the British one, with some banning abortion after 12 weeks’ gestation.

Abortion reform forms part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which is due to be discussed in detail by British politicians tomorrow and Tuesday.

Those MPs in favour of restricting abortion are planning to table amendments that would fix the time limit at anything between 13 and 22 weeks. Pro-life MPs will also attempt to introduce ‘‘informed consent’’ legislation, which has been implemented in 26 other countries around the world. This means that women seeking a termination would be advised to reflect on their decision and given information about the potential risks.

Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, has said that he will vote against any proposals to reduce the 24-week limit.

However, Brown has been forced to grant a free vote on many of the measures, after being faced with a rebellion by dozens of MPs and at least three cabinet members. That means they do not have to vote in accordance with party lines.

The bill also includes measures that will allow the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos and the use of embryo screening to produce so-called ‘saviour siblings’.