Abortion in Northern Ireland: this is just the beginning

Decriminalisation is long overdue. But will much change in practice?

Ella Whelan

Ella Whelan


Northern Ireland’s government in Stormont has been inactive for over 1,000 days. Sinn Fein and the DUP have been unable to bury the hatchet over a botched environmental policy and age-old rows over cultural practices. With the power-sharing agreement unable to function, the Northern Irish civil service has been left running the country, unable to make any key decisions. As a result, the UK parliament passed a law that instructed the two parties to return to Stormont to kiss and make up or face the prospect of Westminster taking over.

After an embarrassing performance in Stormont on Monday, in which a handful of politicians made a hamfisted show of trying to come back together, at midnight Westminsters’ threats became real and the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 came into force. Most significantly, the law also repealed sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, clearing the way for the decriminalisation of abortion.

It is incredibly tempting to celebrate this news. Until this week, women who fell pregnant in Northern Ireland, who either experienced complications or changed their mind about wanting to become mothers, found themselves in a dire place. Abortion – even in extreme and tragic cases of rape or fatal fetal abnormality – was illegal and punishable by prison. Women who took perfectly safe abortion pills that are legal in England were terrified of having their doors knocked down by the police. In such a dystopian situation, any change is welcome.

What’s more, repealing sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act is what most British pro-choice campaigners dream of. British law merely caveats the Offences Against the Person Act with special requirements allowing women to access some abortion services in some circumstances. Legally speaking, repealing sections 58 and 59 could pave the way for Northern Irish women to access abortion services with the same ease as flu medication.

But access to abortion services is about more than the law. Westminster’s new guidelines state: ‘No criminal charges can be brought against those who have an abortion, or against healthcare professionals who provide and assist in an abortion.’ This sounds fantastic. But in practice, there are currently no plans to make services routinely available in Northern Ireland before spring 2020. The BBC reports that by 2020, abortions with medication (but not surgery) will be available at two – just two! – hospital sites in Northern Ireland. In the interim, women will be financially supported to travel to England for abortion services. Though the change in the law is a necessary step, when services will be so few and far between it is hard to see this as a substantial win for women’s bodily autonomy.

There is also the uncomfortable fact that this legal change has been won by default. It is true that pro-choice campaigners in Northern Ireland have worked tirelessly to change the law, buoyed by their sisters in the southern counties who were victorious in repealing the Irish Republic’s archaic abortion ban last year. But Northern Ireland’s law was not changed through a victorious campaign mandated by popular support, but through political chicanery and legal threats. It was imposed from Westminster on a supposedly devolved parliament.

Technical victories are no substitute for making a strong and substantial case for women’s liberty and autonomy. Winning the public’s support will be the only way to guarantee women’s freedom in the long term.

Ella Whelan is a spiked columnist and the author of What Women Want: Fun, Freedom and an End to Feminism.

Picture by: Getty.

No paywall. No subscriptions.
spiked is free for all.

Donate today to keep us fighting.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Thomas Smith

25th October 2019 at 7:44 pm

Perhaps the assumption Ella makes that the people who comment here have half a brain cell on this issue, and/or that they’ve read Ann Furedi’s book on the subject, is misplaced. On the other hand, maybe she just doesn’t give a shit what these reactionary idiots think. I certainly don’t.

Thomas Smith

25th October 2019 at 7:47 pm

I mean, bodily and moral autonomy to be granted to the being that is intelligent, adult, and has experienced life, vs. the creature nesting inside her that has none of the above yet. Duhhh. What a concept!

steve moxon

26th October 2019 at 10:16 am

Dumbest comment on this site for some time. Those who make a play of their supposed intelligence usually are not only thick themselves but willfully uninformed and lacking in the facility to look at different sides of a discussion, as apparently you are on this topic. Even an IQ of well under 100 still allows anyone to see that there is a genuine moral conflict in abortion, compounded by imposing a moral position on third parties — health workers, whose raison d’etre is protecting life, re which they have to swear an oath. With the technology available to all there is no excuse not to know fertility status, thereby to avoid any need for termination beyond whatever time limit is set; not excluding even the ‘heartbeat’ threshold. To accommodate conflicting moral positions a time limit has to be set, and costs of some or various kind need to be sustained by those who don’t take responsibility for a new life within their own body, so as to feed back to reinforce taking such responsibility generally.

Francis Lonergan

24th October 2019 at 8:41 pm

“Winning the public’s support will be the only way to guarantee women’s freedom in the long term.”

There will be no freedom for the would-be future women, who will be victims of Ella’s backward ideology in the growing killing fields.

Neil McCaughan

24th October 2019 at 8:12 pm

As usual Miss Whelan seems wholly unconcerned about the rights of infants, and their fathers. Just a lot of whing about the “rights” of selfish, immature women.

Neil McCaughan

24th October 2019 at 8:15 pm

Whining. I do wish we could edit typos.

Ron Nixon

24th October 2019 at 8:10 pm

Why do pro-death advocates such as Ella Whelan always objectify human life? To her, a fetus is not an individual human life in nascent form that should be nurtured and protected from harm, but a soulless, dead blob of tissue that she should be free to dispose of for any reason, at any time, any where.

Maybe the naked truth of her pro-choice calumny will catch up to her one day?

Tim Hare

28th October 2019 at 9:13 pm

A human life in ‘nascent form’ is a contradiction in terms. There is just human life. Can you think of any other ‘forms’ of human life? Either a life is fully human or it is not. The fact that you have to qualify the fetus with your description of ‘nascent’ shows that there is some doubt about it being fully human. If your argument is reasonable then you would not have manipulate the language.

Puddy Cat

24th October 2019 at 5:41 pm

If we had a private health service with no interaction with authority then the matter would be left to the conscience of the individual. Are we not just a little cheesed off with the moralising NGOs and state run practices? Sweets, fags, eating on buses, dietary obsessions leafing to all sorts of misdirection. Badly conceived and hastily contrived generalities about fat consumption, the use diesel motors? Politicians rushing to hastily patch blind spots. Perhaps the people and their ways of life carry more practical sense and certainly more joy of life than those empire building little government attached sinecures.

Andrew Leonard

25th October 2019 at 5:08 am

If the public wants universal free healthcare, they have to be prepared to accept moralising NGO’s, and all the other stuff you mention, as part of the deal.
There is no parallel universe in which everything health related is free at the point of use, without agenda or ideology being injected into the process.
Think of it like a negotiating situation; if one side wants the trifecta of quality, promptness and zero pricing, the other side gets to demand more than the taxes required to pay for it all.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.