One of the objectives of this blog is sometimes to put another view to an issue under discussion. Indeed, you will see it in the, “on the other hand…” subtitle on the Homepage which you might call a mission statement or, just an ordinary statement of intent. With this in mind, I was reading Caitlin Moran’s column in the Times Colour Magazine and was surprised to find that she was so effected by a statement from the BBC that she had “tears in her eyes”. (The Times, 23/02/19) What on earth could Aunty BBC have done to bring on this reaction from Caitlin? Well, it appears that there had been an episode of Call the Midwife which featured abortion in the bad old days of the 1950’s. According to Caitlin, programs featuring complex issues are normally followed by advertising a Helpline for anyone effected by the content of the program. In this case, the BBC did not do this and when pressed, apparently, said that the abortion issue was too contentious. Caitlin reported the BBC response as, “It isn’t possible for the BBC Action Line to offer support for abortion and similarly contentious issues … Doing so could imply the BBC supporting one side or another.” (sic) Caitlin’s problem with the statement was that a ‘progressive public service’ like the BBC has no business describing the abortion issue as contentious. She makes an odd distinction between the discussion about abortion being possibly contentious and the medical act of committing abortion being beyond any controversy. I can only guess that she is making the point that there is only one argument and that is between 1950’s back street abortions, with all the inherent risks, compared to an abortion carried out by properly qualified medical staff.
If I have understood her correctly, this is the same as comparing medieval executions to those carried out by Pierrepoint who used scientific methods to make hanging more efficient. Hanging was legal in the 1950’s and carried out under medical supervision as is abortion now but both activities are contentious in that they ignore the sanctity of life.
Am I putting forward the case against abortion? The answer is no. However, I am making the point that this is a controversial issue. It continues to be a controversial issue despite the number of Caitlins ‘aunts, bosses and teachers’ mentioned in the article as having had abortions. We see it in the US where they are pushing for full term abortions (Reproductive Health Act. New York) and so I wonder whether Caitlin is being deliberately disingenuous or engaged in sophistry when she attacks the BBC in her column. The clue is in the small things that she says. In the first place she very interestingly describes the BBC as a, “… progressive, public service broadcaster.” What does she mean by progressive? I doubt very much whether you will find this term in the BBC Charter. What it has come to mean is a belief in a certain liberal idealogy that in the context of the BBC Charter would be described as bias.
Caitlin then shifts her argument as adroitly as any Premier league footballer trying to wrong foot the defence. She claims that because the BBC did not offer the helpline at the end of the program they have created. “A problem that isolates women from the rest of society – something that women must fix on their own.” Well, possibly in 1950. I remember the introduction of the Act in 1968 and can remember little else on television, with the BBC taking the lead. I think that we can agree that the rate of abortion in the UK will not decrease because of the BBC decision. I understand from her article that Caitlin has had an abortion and that the above quote might have described her own experience but it is difficult to believe she would be unaware that rightly or wrongly, there are other strongly held views opposing abortion.
I am in unfamiliar territory defending the BBC. Normally, I would be manning the barricades alongside Caitlin calling out BBC bias but not on this issue.
I think that Caitlin has been a bit devious in her line of argument. The issue of abortion is contentious in a way that support for suicides and all of the other good causes mentioned in her article are not. Abortion services are well known and distributed throughout Health services and the wider community, the BBC action will have no effect on access. I would guess that the most effective conduit is provided informally by the 8.7 million women and families who have availed of the service. The real issue is that Caitlin and ”every woman she knows’ believe that there is only one truth and that there can be no other opinion. Both Caitlin and myself are surprised that the BBC has tried to demonstrate some little bit of independence but herself, every woman she knows and the feminist groups she referred to will hunt out the offending spokesperson and make sure that they are re-educated to understand that a ‘progressive, public service broadcaster’ cannot suggest that there may be an alternative to the one progressive truth..
Reference : The Times Magazine, Caitlin Moran, 23/02/19, Abortion is not Contentious…