SocialistAction 1983–88

The paper of the Socialist League, formerly the International Marxist Group, 1983–88

Victoria Gillick wins appeal

· Socialist Action No. 84, 11 January 1985 · p. 9 of the scan · 481 words

The scan: 084-jan-11-1985-SA-UK.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from a scan of a newspaper page, and the page was cut into articles by machine, at the headlines found by their type size. Nothing has been corrected: expect misread words, text from a neighbouring article, and titles that are the machine reading of the headline, some of them only fragments. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: headline found by type size in the OCR geometry (split_tabloid.py); 1-4 of 7; machine-segmented newspaper page; uncorrected Vision OCR.

page 9 of the scan

ROMAN CATHOLIC mother of 10, Gillick, has won her appeal for no contraceptive or abortion information or treatment to be given to young under 16 permission.

The judges said they were ruling legal grounds only and that it was now up to parliament change the law The ruling applies only young men will buy sheaths from chemists onlineutic The ruling brought an immediate outery from the medical profession, who now placed the difficult position of having prescribing contraception for young wuntel even when they have already been doing so they can persuade the vouno woman to tell her parents.

It is feared that this will not simply mean more pregnancies, but could also lead to blackmarket birthVictoria without their parents' control pills an increase in VD (as young women will be worried about going to a doctor with evidence of illegal sexual activity).

The DHSS has indicated will be appealing to the House of Lords and hopes the case will be heard within month. A number of 'prolife' Tory MPs claim this will be a waste of money. Presumably, if the verdict had gone the oller way, they wouldn't complain about Mrs continuing use of public funds in the form of legal aid.

It is not certain that the reverse the verdict and ill House Lords uney do, no doubt tores will attempt to get the law changed prevell doc tors treating young women without their parents permission.

it is important not to wait till this happens before slating calllOne does not nave lo favour early sexual activity to believe that it is important that young people get all the available informanon they neco to make up their own minds.

have sex. that they do so in a responsible manner. That means avoiding unwanted pregnancies.

Victoria Gillick believes - that the means no one can give advice to the under-16s about contraception or abortion and that includes sex education! But there is no evidence to show that ignorance enhances 'innocence'. Quite the contrary • ле pete educated tend to start their Sexual laler ural those who get little or no accurate sex education.

The ruling ignores the reality many do the people's lives, poor nature of their rela tionships with their It is clear from parents' attitude to sex education than many prefer schools doctors impart information to their children. And many youngsters who choose not to take their parents into their connaence do so because une.) sense their parents don't want it KIOw.

The National Abortion Campaign has taken the challenge of the ruling produced an action is holding a meeting on holding meeting on Saturday 12 January, 2pm, to discuss setting up broad-based Callay to ensure that the Appeal if not in the Lords, then in parliament.

• The meeting is at, and more information available Wesley House, Great Queen Street, London WC2B SAX. Photo: MARK ROSNER

← The fight for Irish self-determinationHappy Birthday NAC! →

Something wrong on this page?