This piece, published by The Times on Monday 18th November 2024, focuses on Bishop Keenan's criticism of the lack of anti-abortion representation in the panel’s members. The author was Jeremy Watson.

The “credibility and legitimacy” of an expert panel reviewing abortion law in Scotland has been undermined by it being packed with supporters of the procedure, a leading Catholic cleric has claimed.

Abortion is legal in Scotland up to 24 weeks gestation but women require the approval of two doctors working to strict criteria for surgical or medical intervention.

The panel started work this year after pressure from feminist policy groups, which believe that abortion should be treated as a healthcare matter and that women who do not meet the legal criteria should be able to access abortion services without fear of prosecution under the 1861 Offences Against The Person Act.

However, Bishop John Keenan, the Bishop of Paisley, said his hopes for the review had been dealt a blow because anti-abortion organisations were not represented on the 13-member panel.

The panel is chaired by Professor Anna Glasier, appointed last year as Scotland’s first women’s health champion, who is an expert in reproductive medicine and was instrumental in making emergency contraception widely available in the UK.

“Discovering the identity of the members chosen by the government for its supposedly independent abortion law review expert working group, tasked with recommending possible changes to abortion laws has dealt my hopes a blow,” Keenan writes in The Times.

“Of 13 members, six are abortion providers or practitioners and 10 have already expressed a view in favour or represent organisations that support decriminalisation of abortion. None represent a pro-life constituency or organisation. In terms of membership alone, the “expert group” lacks both credibility and legitimacy.

“Its terms of reference expect members to be ‘respectful of all views and opinions expressed within the group’ and yet, before a ball is kicked, as it were, it has censored any contradictory views and opinions, of which there are many, questioning the current liberality of our abortion laws.”

The Abortion Act 1967 did not decriminalise abortion but instead set out criteria to make the procedure permissible. They include signatures from two doctors confirming that certain conditions have been met, mainly that continuing the pregnancy would cause severe physical or mental harm to the woman.

Abortions after 24 weeks are allowed only if the woman’s life is in danger, if there is a severe foetal abnormality or if the woman is at risk of grave physical and mental injury.

Outside these circumstances, deliberately ending a pregnancy remains a criminal offence. Other conditions in which abortion might be desirable, including rape, incest, poverty or simply not wanting to be pregnant, do not necessarily fall within the criteria.

Campaigners argue that abortion should be decriminalised and that the current legislation is outdated as the necessity for a woman to approval from two doctors unnecessarily complicates the process and causes delays and barriers to access.
Jenni Minto, the public health minister, said the review would aim to ensure that abortion services were first and foremost a healthcare matter.

“Engagement with all viewpoints is a vital part of this review and the expert group has already received a wide range of written submissions and evidence, including from pro-life organisations,” Minto said. “The Scottish government has also written to a range of pro-life groups to ask if they wish to participate in a stakeholder group to feed directly into the review.”

The Scottish government expects to hold a public consultation on any proposals arising from the review next year.