In most countries in the world, women do not have the right to abortion. And in those countries where the law has been changed, the bourgeoisie is still trying to take back the concessions it has been forced to grant.*
aside such questions as how hese ang ase de seein sentes son
1. and the deficiencies of the health-care system, it is not possible to discuss these "liberalization" measures without pointing out how restrictive they are in the majority of cases.
In Great Britain, women may have abortions up to the twentieth week, on condition that they obtain authorization from two physicians, who alone are empowered to decide whether the "case" before them corresponds to the restrictive provisions of the law. In the United States, the right to abortion is recognized by law, but women and doctors can still be sentenced to prison terms if abortions are performed after a certain time period has passed.
In France, the law supposedly gives women "the right to abortion," but only up to the tenth week, as long as they are not minors or immigrants and have undergone two compulsory interviews. And in France, as in the United States, the law does not specify that abortion costs are to be automatically reimbursed. The list goes on.
In this situation, our struggle is to get the women's movement as well as the labor movement to lead a battle for recognition of the right to abortion and contraception as an inalienable right-the right of women to choose whether or not they want children, and if so, when and how. In the slogans that we raise, we oppose any restrictions on that right.
But this position cannot be taken for granted, as the recent debate inside the National Abortion Campaign in Great Britain showed. The debate was over what position the organization should take on a bill proposed by the Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA).
The ALRA is a reformist organization that has existed in Great Britain since 1936. Its main objective has always been to try to put pressure on members of parliament, rather than to mobilize broad masses to win the right to abortion. This bill defined abortion as a right, but only up to the point where the fetus becomes "via-
*See "International Campaign Launched for Right to Abortion," by Jacqueline Heinen, in Intercontinental Press/ Inprecor, July 17, 1978. p. 854.
ble," that is, up to the twenty-eighth week.
At first glance, this proposition would appear to be sensible, given the real physical and mental risks incurred by women who decide to abort after that point. But the very fact that it involves a time limit fundamentally undermines women's right to choose. We cannot allow anyone, on grounds of sparing the public's feelingsleast of all the feelings of the parliamentary representatives who are being called upon to vote-to place limits on a right that belongs to the individual woman.
This is a conclusion that the NAC came to after a long debate, and after its 1977 congress had defeated the ALRA proposal by a slim margin. The majority that emerged from the 1978 congress tends to agree with what the comrades of the IMG (International Marxist Group, British section of the Fourth International), who took part in the discussion, had to say:
From the standpoint of principle, we need legislation that gives women the right to abort without having to pay, and without needing anyone's permission. This implies that there not be any restrictions, and that we go as far as possible in obtaining legislation regarding funding and the structures that will make it possible for the law to be really implemented. It should be a law that reflects women's interests alone, steering clear of any compromises that bend to the interests of parliament. That is why the NAC should propose that there be no limitation, legal or medical, on women's right to abortion. Only women should be able to control their bodies and their reproductive functions. No other individual, no institution, and no government is entitled to claim that right.
In the capitalist system, the bourgeoisie uses parliament and the laws as an instrument of control over the working class. That is why the NAC is now in favor of there being no restrictions on women's right to choose, and we do not accept any time limits (such as "viability" of the fetus) on that choice. At any time in their pregnancy, women are responsible enough, if they have access to adequate information, to decide whether or not to end their pregnancy. Women do not need to be protected against themselves in matters of procreation and sexuality. The acceptance of a time limit would mean that we recognize the right of the state to intervene in women's lives. Furthermore, it would mean that at a certain point, the rights of the fetus would prevail over those of women.
Granted, no one can deny that women who have late abortions are taking a risk. But one can also ask what would happen if the right to contraception and abortionand thus information-really existed at all levels of society? How many women would take such a risk? And, on the contrary, where that right does not exist today, don't many women take infinite risks by aborting in the first three months, at a time when, in principle, abortion should not pose major risks if it is practiced under the right conditions?
So a problem arises, one that has come up in many discussions: Why fight to get a law passed giving women the right to abortion? Why not consider abortion like any other medical procedure? The law does not codify the right to be operated on for appendicitis, for example!
From the moment that a consciousness exists of the fact that women should be free to have abortions, what is necessary is to fight to decriminalize abortion, to abolish all the laws that penalize it. A victory in this field will then make it possible to wage a struggle to have abortion included in the health-insurance code, like any other medical procedure.
This is the type of position that was adopted by the Italian Radical Party when it proposed a referendum to abolish the abortion law dating from the fascist period, and, at the beginning, by a coalition of bourgeois liberals and reformists in Switzerland, which sponsored an initiative on decriminalizing abortion without putting forward any proposal for an alternative law.
Moreover, this approach to the question found a certain echo in the antiparliamentary point of view held by a major current in the women's movement in those two countries. For many feminists, a "refusal to be manipulated," and hence, a refusal to participate in campaigns with other political forces, was combined with a
• total underestimation of the importance of parliamentary battles for the growth of a mass movement around abortion.
In Italy, the combination of these two currents paralyzed the women's movement, making it incapable of responding to the aspirations that were beginning to be expressed among working-class women. It even led to a deep division within the movement, between the current of feminists who had been the first to launch the struggle around abortion, and those who, conscious of the backwardness of the Italian working class on this issue, struggled to get the trade-union movement to take up the demand for the right to abortion and take part in the political battle that was then going on at the parliamentary level.
The former current did not manage to go beyond its social horizon, and put all the emphasis on "alternative" ways of doing things, on personal experience, as though the battle for the right to abortion were already outmoded on the grounds that the initial mobilizations had succeeded in establishing a few "consultori" (clinics).
As for us, we know that the right to free abortion and contraception on demand will be won only by mobilizing the masses of women and workers. But we know that the laws resulting from mass mobilizations (such as the 1967 law in Great Britain, the 1973 Supreme Court decision in the United States, or the Veil law in France) are partial gains that have to be defended.
Two very significant examples show the necessity of not underestimating the importance of carrying out a legal battle as part of the struggle to establish structures making it possible for women to have abortions.
First, take the example of English Canada. The development of the women's movement at the end of the 1960s, and especially the mobilizations around abortion, had established a relationship of forces such that the authorities were compelled to tolerate abortion in practice. While there had been no change in the law, it was relatively easy up until recently to get a hospital abortion by appealing to an ad hoc body.
However, as an immediate consequence of the economic crisis, and the austerity policy imposed by the bourgeoisie, particularly in the public sector, a number of gynecology units-which were considered "secondary" relative to other hospital departments-were shut down, and the facilities that had been allotted up to then for abortion were eliminated. Most of the ad hoe bodies simply began strictly applying the terms of the law itself, which permits abortion only in exceptional cases.
Faced with this situation, Canadian feminists realized that only by relaunching a central battle for the right to legal, unrestricted abortion could they lay the groundwork for a successful struggle to unleash the funds necessary to enable women to have abortions.
Another example is what is happening in Australia, where clinics do of course exist in which women can have abortions (some of which even appear to be official institutions), but where the law at the national level also does not permit free abortion on demand. Leaving aside the fact that several of these clinics are mainly a source of fantastic profits for their owners (an abortion, performed in an assembly-line manner, costs $200), it should be noted that the Fraser government is now trying to drop abortion from the list of medical services covered by the national health insurance to make it into an "optional" service similar to plastic surgery, implying a higher insurance premium!
There again, the Australian feminist movement is being forced to lead a battle, both to keep abortion covered by health insurance (considered as a gain), and to have abortion recognized as an inalienable right written into the law.
If we now look at the situation in coun tries where the abortion laws have been "liberalized," we find that nowhere is abortion considered a right, leaving the choice entirely up to the woman. Not even in Sweden, where the time period for abortion on demand has nevertheless been extended to eighteen weeks, and where the opportunities for legal abortion beyond that limit are real. There, as elsewhere, it is still the medical profession that has the last word.
In particular, if we take France as an example, where the law defines abortion up to the tenth week as a "right," we see that the restrictions in the Veil law referred to above-the lack of funds with which to set up the necessary structures, the use of the "conscience clause" by allpowerful department heads to make sure no abortions are done in "their" hospitals-all lead to a situation where, in spite of an article of the law "authorizing" contraception and abortion within certain limits, what is in fact involved is neither a right nor a choice for the majority of women.
In France, as in the other countries where the law has been modified, recognition of women's right to choose presupposes that the central target of mobilizations places no restriction whatever on any woman (which implies first of all that abortion should be free).
In contrast to the reformists, we refuse to consider the problem of abortion and contraception in terms of improving or applying the existing law, nor do we consider that issues of "conscience" are involved for the deputies or doctors who have to make the decision.
The Italian CP showed that it was willing to make any and all concessions during the parliamentary debate to save the "historic compromise." It agreed as a last resort to restrictions in the law concerning minors, and now that this law has been passed with all its limitations, the CP makes triumphant speeches about implementing it on the local level without questhe deficiencies in the hospital tioning system.
The French CP has recently begun declaring that it wants to carry out a campaign to implement and extend the Veil law, but maintains a discreet silence about the restrictions on minors so as not to offend the voters by bringing up a controversial issue-the family.
The British Labour Party makes abortion an issue of "conscience" for parliamentary deputies, and despite its position on paper favoring women's right to abortion, allows its own members to vote against liberalizing the law.
Finally, the West German Social Democratic Party didn't lift a finger in 1974 when the Supreme Court of Karlsruhe knocked down a decision by parliament decreeing the right to abortion up to the third month. The law in question was later replaced by one much more restrictive, without eliciting any mobilizations by the workers movement. The sole exception is the recent decision by the Berlin civilservice trade union to renew the struggle around this issue.
Such examples are not likely to convince feminists who are still hesitating that the successful outcome of their struggle depends on their ability to link up with the workers movement.
However, the battle for the right to abortion and contraception cannot be won mobilization without a massive of working-class organizations, and of working women first and foremost. To that end, there are special axes of struggle that we can proceed from to make it easier to involve the workers movement. For instance, cases of repression, as we saw in France with the example of Aix or of Frank Dupin, in Belgium with the defense of Dr. Peers, and in Canada with the battle for Dr. Morgentaler's release and then acquittal.
But the consequences of the economic crisis, and the general tendency of the bourgeoisie internationally to resurrect women's traditional role, can imbue this struggle with an explosive dynamic, enabling it to go far beyond the issues of abortion and contraception and bursting the framework that the reformists try to impose on it.
The mobilizations in various countries have in fact already shown that this battle, which nearly always leads women to put forward demands having to do with the quality of contraception or their desire to have some control, together with the staff, over the family planning or abortion centers that are set up, necessarily leads to a questioning of the health-care system that exists in this society, and of the role of the multinational pharmaceutical trusts.
In particular, the internationalist dimension of this struggle can be a decisive element in bringing out its political character. In the colonial and semicolonial world, women sometimes struggle around issues analogous to those that exist in the advanced capitalist countries, as can be seen today in Mexico or Mauritius, where mobilizations for the right to abortion and contraception have already taken on major proportions. But they are also, and more often, reduced to struggling against forced contraception and sterilization.
Solidarity with these women, who are among the most oppressed and exploited, must be a central feature of the recently launched international campaign. Such solidarity can be established on the basis of a slogan shared by all women: For the right to choose!