The bishops and abortion

If the Church cannot convince legislators that life is sacred because it begins at conception, then we have next to no chance of persuading them to repeal legalised abortion in South Africa.

The bishops of Southern Africa seem to have accepted this reality. In their presentation to parliamentary hearings on the proposed amendments to the abortion law, they naturally called for the scrapping of the Choice of Termination of Pregnancy Act. But knowing that no amount of argument would accomplish that, they adopted plan B – one defined by Pope John Paul as limiting “the harm done by such a law and lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.”

The bishops wisely and charitably acknowledged that Church and state shared the same objective “of reducing unwanted pregnancies, of eliminating morbidity from back street abortions, and of taking care of the mother.” Instead of engaging parliament in a war of ideology (as some pro-choice lobbyists might have hoped), the bishops sought to find some common ground with legislators for the greater good.

The bishops’ arguments were rational and compelling. Even the most ardent supporters of abortion cannot reasonably argue, as they have done before, that the Catholic Church was following an agenda that is contrary to women’s interest. The opposite is true.

The question of pre- and post-abortion counselling in particular is of great significance. Contrary to the sales pitch presented by the Marie Stopes Clinic, procuring an abortion is neither liberating nor an easy decision.

Women who consider having an abortion should be fully advised of the potential physiological and psychological consequences, as well as of the alternatives that exist for example organisations such as Birthright or the archdiocese of Durban’s Mater homes, which assist pregnant women in need.

Importantly, proper counselling facilities should also be available for women who have had abortions.

The bishops rightly call for the retention of the conscience clause for medical staff who oppose abortions. It is a chilling notion that, as the bishops suggest, pro-life doctors and nurses have been discriminated against.

And then there is the question of the safety of women who elect to have an abortion. When parliament debated the legalisation of abortion in 1996, the pro-choice lobby made much of the dangers involved in back-street procedures. If the physical safety of women was a priority then, it seems to be less so now.

While the parliamentary Health Portfolio Committee has agreed with the bishops that only properly trained medical staff and nurses may perform abortions, Doctors for Life in their submission raised the issue of dangerous chemical abortions, which are becoming a norm in South Africa.

The medication typically used to induce abortions is called Misoprostil (or Cytotec), a drug that was originally developed to counteract stomach ulcers. The department of health in the Free State has conceded that the use of Misoprostil in abortions has led to deaths according to the daily Pretoria News about 500 women annually nationwide.

The Church may be unable to persuade parliament of its ethical case against abortion, but the bishops have served the nation by pointing out the grave dangers of the proposed abortion law.