Fucking yes!

// 20 May 2008

MPs have just voted against reducing the abortion time limit to 20 weeks by 332 votes to 190. They have also rejected plans to include consideration for the supposed need for a father when allowing women access to IVF treatment.

I am ridiculously happy! Screw you, Dorries! (I may also be a little tipsy…)

EDIT: 22 weeks has also been rejected! My faith in the political system has been (albeit partially) restored.

Comments From You

Chloe // Posted 20 May 2008 at 11:12 pm

They still have to vote on 22 weeks, but the way things are going it’s looking pretty good so far :D

Jane P // Posted 20 May 2008 at 11:16 pm

I am THRILLED! Fantastic! Let’s hope the Daily Mail, Dorries, and Ian Duncan Follicularly Challenged all choke on their own moral outrage.

Chloe // Posted 20 May 2008 at 11:19 pm

They just chucked out 22 weeks as well!!! :D

Catherine Redfern // Posted 20 May 2008 at 11:21 pm

They’ve rejected 22 weeks!!!

Charleh // Posted 20 May 2008 at 11:23 pm

There’s still Evan Harris’s amendment to shift the requirement for two doctors’ signatures coming up, but at least this is sorted now!

Redheadinred // Posted 20 May 2008 at 11:25 pm

Oh, thank god! This is great news. I’ve exhaled.

YES!

Lew // Posted 20 May 2008 at 11:30 pm

Let’s see the Daily Mail get its laughing gear around that one!

I’ve been following all four votes over the last two days. I’m so fucking happy over the two today, it’s unreal.

I may possibly perhaps almost be a bit tipsy as well =]

chem_fem // Posted 20 May 2008 at 11:36 pm

Hooray!! What a victory for choice!!

Mwezzi // Posted 20 May 2008 at 11:40 pm

Thanks goodness for that. Coupled with the overturning of the other amendments that would have disallowed lesbian couples from getting IVF, it’s been a good night.

Jess // Posted 20 May 2008 at 11:47 pm

Yes! Excellent :)

That last vote on 22 weeks was dangerously close, though.

JENNIFER DREW // Posted 20 May 2008 at 11:51 pm

Daily Male and its cohorts will doubtless play the ‘self righteous line’ and claim MP’s who voted against reduction in time limit are ‘misguided individuals who were swayed by those abominable feminists.’ But fact cannot be denied attempt at suppressing women’s bodily integrity has been defeated this time.

Liz // Posted 21 May 2008 at 12:13 am

Hurrah :)

Unity // Posted 21 May 2008 at 12:31 am

Sadly, the amendment on two signatures was withdrawn without a vote.

I suspect it was felt that if that was on the table then it might have compromised efforts to hold the line on 24 weeks.

Anne Onne // Posted 21 May 2008 at 12:51 am

That’s the best thing I’ve heard in a while! I was really worried all the ‘moral’ lot would have gained a foothold, seeing as how they are media darlings. Maybe it really is a minority of very vocal people trying to chip others’ rights away, instead of seeming to be everybody and their dog claiming we just have too many abortions now that they’re legal and all.

But it’s really sad we have to worry about a situation which should never arise, and the fear of losing rights we deserve.

Still, celebration is in order!

Sailor Jo // Posted 21 May 2008 at 1:31 am

Makes me proud to be British.

Kirsty // Posted 21 May 2008 at 7:06 am

THANK GOD!!!! I am so relieved and thrilled! Wish I could have been in London for the protest.

Kirsty // Posted 21 May 2008 at 7:53 am

It’s still a great result. But Dorries, Widdecombe and co will only be planning their next attack though.

Cockney Hitcher // Posted 21 May 2008 at 8:46 am

I’m so relieved!!!

And thanks F-word for drawing attention to the bill and advertising the demo etc.

Jennifer-Ruth // Posted 21 May 2008 at 9:06 am

Hurrah for choice!

I was so happy to hear this news.

But we must remember that there are still battles to be fought for choice! As mentioned above, the amendment to remove the need for 2 doctors signatures was taken off the table.

Toni Daniels // Posted 21 May 2008 at 9:11 am

Hooray! Fantastic news :) Up yours Dorries.

Fabs // Posted 21 May 2008 at 9:20 am

Fantastic news!!

Fanny Blood // Posted 21 May 2008 at 9:24 am

Rrrrrrrespect, Sisters.

X

harpymarx // Posted 21 May 2008 at 9:42 am

Brilliant news!

The protest outside Parliament was excellent, lots of women and very loud!!

As I was leaving we were told that the ‘father’ amendment put forward by Iain Duncan Smith had fallen. There was a loud cheer…..

Suzi K // Posted 21 May 2008 at 9:49 am

WOOOOOO!!

YAY!

Thats about all I can say!!

Nina // Posted 21 May 2008 at 9:56 am

This news almost made me weep with relief.

Ariel Silvera // Posted 21 May 2008 at 10:08 am

Fantastic! A fellow activist and myself were following the vote last night, crossing our fingers (due to the implications any anti-choice amendment has for Ireland).

I’m glad that the lurch towards conservatism in Britain (starting with Boring Johnson) is not going as rosy as planned for Cameron and Co.

Anna // Posted 21 May 2008 at 10:21 am

ohh, this makes me happy it does. just as much for the right to have control of my own body as the fact it’s a political slap in the face for that intolerable misogynistic racist Dorries..

relived // Posted 21 May 2008 at 10:38 am

A giant sigh of relief.

Feministy // Posted 21 May 2008 at 10:46 am

I was watching the votes on BBC Parliament last night. I’m so happy today, although it frightens me that we should even be in the position where we are worried about losing rights we already have, rather then fighting to have the need to cast aspersions on our mental health before we can access abortion removed. Still, lets be grateful for small victories!

Also, I found out that my MP voted for a reduction in the time limit (there are lists on the BBC News website), so I won’t be voting for him in the next election!

rooroo // Posted 21 May 2008 at 11:04 am

I am so pleased and relieved about the result!

But now is a time for action, not complacency. We need to get the message out to the public why late term abortion is so important and encourage women who have been through this to speak out.

f // Posted 21 May 2008 at 11:09 am

now just check if your mp voted for or against it…

anyone read that portrait of dorries in mondays g2 guardian? pure horror!

Gayle Noble // Posted 21 May 2008 at 11:32 am

Great news that the limit has been held but I agree with Anne Onne’s comments. I am worried that there are a lot of people out there who don’t bother to check the facts themselves and believe whatever is put to them via the media. This is evidenced by the views printed on a local teletext debate where many of those who responded seemed to think that women just turn up at a clinic on the day and demand an abortion at 24 weeks. These are the people that may be swayed by the pro-life emotive argument. I complained to my local news station because the piece they showed on the debate was very one-sided. I fear that there will be another motion to cut the limit in the near future.

Lucy R // Posted 21 May 2008 at 11:44 am

Hello. Long time reader, first time poster.

Absolutely thrilled by this. I was following the live blog on the Guardian and let out a cheer when the final vote result came up. Slightly worrying that the majority over 22 weeks was only 71, but hurray all the same.

Cara // Posted 21 May 2008 at 11:59 am

YAY!!

Lara The Second // Posted 21 May 2008 at 7:19 pm

THANK SCIENCE. YAY!!!

Rebecca // Posted 22 May 2008 at 6:06 pm

Here’s hoping this vote may cause the media to review the veritable propaganda they’ve been spewing with their spoon-feeding use of statistics and ’emotive’ fallacies.

Lisa Hallgarten // Posted 27 May 2008 at 11:50 am

Science helped us retain the current time limit, and it made sense to use the scientific argument to defend the time limit, because it was medical/scientific advances that were the rationale for reducing it in 1990. Now we really need to start reasserting the argument that women are actually the centre of this debate not the fetus. Whatever we judge viability to be, there will always be women who don’t feel able to continue with a particular pregnancy at that particular moment in her life. We have to get society to look honestly at how many children are unloved and not brilliantly cared for and how as a society we fail so many children. Then we should ask ourselves should we under ANY circumstances EVER force a woman to have a baby when she says she is not able or willing. These fundamental issues have got lost in the very specific debate about time limits. Let’s get them centre-stage again.

Lisa Hallgarten // Posted 27 May 2008 at 2:12 pm

Science helped us retain the current time limit, and it made sense to use the scientific argument to defend the time limit, because it was medical/scientific advances that were the rationale for reducing it in 1990. Now we really need to start reasserting the argument that women are actually the centre of this debate not the fetus. Whatever we judge viability to be, there will always be women who don’t feel able to continue with a particular pregnancy at that particular moment in her life. We have to get society to look honestly at how many children are unloved and not brilliantly cared for and how as a society we fail so many children. Then we should ask ourselves should we under ANY circumstances EVER force a woman to have a baby when she says she is not able or willing. These fundamental issues have got lost in the very specific debate about time limits. Let’s get them centre-stage again.

Have Your say

To comment, you must be registered with The F-Word. Not a member? Register. Already a member? Use the sign in button below

Sign in to the F-Word

Further Reading

Has The F-Word whet your appetite? Check out our Resources section, for listings of feminist blogs, campaigns, feminist networks in the UK, mailing lists, international and national websites and charities of interest.

Write for us!

Got something to say? Something to review? News to discuss? Well we want to hear from you! Click here for more info

  • The F-Word on Twitter
  • The F-Word on Facebook
  • Our XML Feeds