Thorny entanglements: feminism, eugenics and the Abortion Law Reform Association's (ALRA) campaign for safe, accessible abortion in Britain, 1936-1967.

IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Medical History Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-18 DOI:10.1017/mdh.2024.4
Susanne Maria Klausen
{"title":"Thorny entanglements: feminism, eugenics and the Abortion Law Reform Association's (ALRA) campaign for safe, accessible abortion in Britain, 1936-1967.","authors":"Susanne Maria Klausen","doi":"10.1017/mdh.2024.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For the past two decades anti-abortionists in the Global North have been aggressively instrumentalising disability in order to undermine women's social autonomy, asserting, falsely, there is an insuperable conflict between disability rights and reproductive rights. The utilisation of disability in struggles over abortion access is not new, it has a history dating back to the interwar era. Indeed, decades before anti-abortionists' campaign, feminists invoked disability to expand access to safe abortion. This paper examines the feminist eugenics in the first organisation dedicated to liberalising restrictive abortion laws, the Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA), established in England in 1936. ALRA played a vital role in the passage of the Abortion Act 1967 (or the Act) that greatly expanded the grounds for legal abortion, a hugely important gain for women in Britain and beyond seeking legal, safe abortions. In addition, the Act permitted eugenic abortion, which also had transnational effects: within a decade, jurisdictions in numerous Commonwealth countries passed abortion laws that incorporated the Act's eugenics clause, sometimes verbatim. This essay analyses ALRA's role in codifying eugenics in the Abortion Act 1967 and argues that from the outset, ALRA was simultaneously a feminist and eugenist association. Initially, ALRA prioritized their feminist commitment to 'voluntary motherhood' in their campaign whereas starting in the 1940s, they subordinated feminism to negative eugenics, a shift that was simultaneously strategic and a reflection of genuine concern to prevent the birth of children with disabilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":18275,"journal":{"name":"Medical History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11046009/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/mdh.2024.4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For the past two decades anti-abortionists in the Global North have been aggressively instrumentalising disability in order to undermine women's social autonomy, asserting, falsely, there is an insuperable conflict between disability rights and reproductive rights. The utilisation of disability in struggles over abortion access is not new, it has a history dating back to the interwar era. Indeed, decades before anti-abortionists' campaign, feminists invoked disability to expand access to safe abortion. This paper examines the feminist eugenics in the first organisation dedicated to liberalising restrictive abortion laws, the Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA), established in England in 1936. ALRA played a vital role in the passage of the Abortion Act 1967 (or the Act) that greatly expanded the grounds for legal abortion, a hugely important gain for women in Britain and beyond seeking legal, safe abortions. In addition, the Act permitted eugenic abortion, which also had transnational effects: within a decade, jurisdictions in numerous Commonwealth countries passed abortion laws that incorporated the Act's eugenics clause, sometimes verbatim. This essay analyses ALRA's role in codifying eugenics in the Abortion Act 1967 and argues that from the outset, ALRA was simultaneously a feminist and eugenist association. Initially, ALRA prioritized their feminist commitment to 'voluntary motherhood' in their campaign whereas starting in the 1940s, they subordinated feminism to negative eugenics, a shift that was simultaneously strategic and a reflection of genuine concern to prevent the birth of children with disabilities.

棘手的纠葛:女权主义、优生学与堕胎法改革协会 (ALRA) 为英国安全、方便的堕胎而发起的运动,1936-1967 年。
过去二十年来,全球北方的反堕胎主义者一直在积极利用残疾问题来破坏妇女的社会自主权,并错误地声称残疾权利与生殖权利之间存在不可逾越的冲突。在争取堕胎机会的斗争中利用残疾问题并非新鲜事,其历史可追溯到战时。事实上,早在反堕胎运动之前的几十年,女权主义者就利用残疾问题来扩大安全堕胎的机会。本文探讨了 1936 年在英国成立的首个致力于放宽限制性堕胎法的组织--堕胎法改革协会(ALRA)中的女权主义优生学。堕胎法改革协会在 1967 年《堕胎法》(或称该法)的通过过程中发挥了至关重要的作用,该法极大地扩展了合法堕胎的理由,这对寻求合法、安全堕胎的英国及其他国家的妇女来说是一项极其重要的收获。此外,该法案允许优生堕胎,这也产生了跨国影响:在十年内,许多英联邦国家的司法管辖区通过了堕胎法,其中纳入了该法案的优生条款,有时是逐字逐句地纳入。本文分析了 ALRA 在将《1967 年堕胎法》中的优生学编入法典方面所扮演的角色,并认为从一开始,ALRA 就同时是一个女权主义和优生学协会。最初,ALRA 在其运动中优先考虑女权主义对 "自愿生育 "的承诺,而从 20 世纪 40 年代开始,她们将女权主义置于消极优生学之下,这一转变同时具有战略意义,并反映了对防止残疾儿童出生的真正关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical History
Medical History 医学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical History is a refereed journal devoted to all aspects of the history of medicine and health, with the goal of broadening and deepening the understanding of the field, in the widest sense, by historical studies of the highest quality. It is also the journal of the European Association for the History of Medicine and Health. The membership of the Editorial Board, which includes senior members of the EAHMH, reflects the commitment to the finest international standards in refereeing of submitted papers and the reviewing of books. The journal publishes in English, but welcomes submissions from scholars for whom English is not a first language; language and copy-editing assistance will be provided wherever possible.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信