We've defended reproductive rights from religiously motivated restrictions since our founding.
Religion should not stand in the way of reproductive healthcare.
A desire to restrict reproductive rights, and to control women's bodies, is a hallmark of religious fundamentalism. We strongly support the right of women to have legal and safe abortions and access to emergency contraception.
Since its founding the National Secular Society has supported reproductive rights. In 1878 our founder and vice-president were prosecuted for making information about birth control accessible to working class women.
Throughout the world, reproductive rights are still under threat from theocrats. While individual religious people hold diverse views on abortion, every stage of progress in reproductive healthcare has been fought by religious organisations. Often these have involved virulent campaigns of intimidation and misinformation.
84% of people in the UK believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. This includes 76% of religious people and 94% of nonreligious people.
In the UK, emergency contraception can still sometimes be difficult to obtain. Some religious pharmacists have defied General Pharmaceutical Council guidance by refusing to sell it or even to dispense a prescription given to a woman after a consultation with her own doctor.
People of all religions and beliefs can have disagreements on the boundaries of bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. However, religious beliefs should not be used to restrict the bodily autonomy of other people.
Take action!
1. Share your story
Tell us why you support this campaign, and how you are personally affected by the issue. You can also let us know if you would like assistance with a particular issue.
2. Join the National Secular Society
Become a member of the National Secular Society today! Together, we can separate religion and state for greater freedom and fairness.
Latest updates
Catholic midwives try to extend the “conscience” exemption in Abortion Act
Posted: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:06
Two Scottish Catholic midwives who didn't want to supervise staff who carried out abortion procedures have appealed to the Court of Sessions after their arguments were rejected in a judicial review last year.
Mary Doogan and Concepta Wood (right) said being forced to supervise Glasgow health board staff taking part in abortions violated their human rights. But Judge Lady Smith ruled against them, saying they were protected from direct involvement in abortion procedures by the 1967 Abortion Act.
The women argued that by delegating, supporting and supervising staff involved in the procedures they were being forced to enable the procedure.
Both women were midwifery sisters at the Southern General Hospital inGlasgow. Their counsel Gerry Moynihan QC told the court that the case may go to the Supreme Court from either side.
Mr Moynihan told Lord Mackay, sitting with Lady Dorrian and Lord McEwan, that in so far as the women were part of a team their right to conscientious objection extended to the whole of their duties, save for the provision that there was an obligation to participate in life-saving measures.
He said neither woman claimed any conscientious objection to the involvement in treatment that was necessary to save the life of the mother.
"In the 1967 Act what Parliament set out to do was to balance two objectives, conscious that abortion was a controversial matter," he said.
"What they sought to balance was the interests of those who wished abortion to be liberalised and carried out more safely, so it was not done by back street practitioners, and regulated. It decriminalised abortion in certain circumstances."
Mr Moynihan said parliament also recognised in the debate that having decriminalised it, it could then be that a superior could direct a junior person to participate in treatment to which they had a well-recognised conscientious objection.
"So what Parliament did was balance the interests of those who wished to liberalise the treatment while respecting the right of conscientious objection," he said. Much of the argument hinged on how narrow the meaning of the word "participation" should be.
Mr Moynihan said there was clear legal authority that the right to conscientious objection was intended to apply to the whole team whose involvement was necessary to achieve the procedure. He said that because the midwives let the administration know of their objection in advance the health board could manage its staff as a whole to respect their right to conscientious objection.
"The administrative convenience of the health board is irrelevant because the right is a balance between facilitating abortion while respecting the genuine conscientious objection of medical, nursing and ancillary staff," he said.
He told the court that the woman said that prior to 2007 there were "work around arrangements".
Mr Moynihan argued that "the dividing line" over what was exempt ought to be an individual's conscience and not a bureaucrat saying that was not in the literal meaning of participation.
Brian Napier QC, for the health authority, argued that having responsibility of a managerial, supervisory or support nature did not of itself trigger the right to conscientious objection.
The hearing continues
USA enacting more and more legal restrictions on abortion
Posted: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:36
In 2012, 19 states in the USA enacted 43 provisions that "sought to restrict access to abortion services," according to the Guttmacher Institute.
"Although some of the most high-profile debates occurred around legislation requiring that women seeking an abortion be required to first undergo an ultrasound or imposing strict regulations on abortion providers, most of the new restrictions enacted in 2012 concerned limits on later abortion, coverage in health exchanges or medication abortion," the institute said in its 2012 state policy review.
The institute, named after a former president of Planned Parenthood, seeks "to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights."
Meanwhile, Catholic representation on Capitol Hill has reached an all-time high, with 163 members of the new 113th Congress identifying themselves as Catholic.
A new study by the Pew Forum found that the overall Catholic membership of both houses of Congress was up by 7 members, and the proportion of Catholics in the legislature had jumped from 29.2% to 30.6%.
Catholics form by far the largest single religious bloc in Congress. Although Protestants, taken as a single group, maintain their majority status with 56% of the membership, no single Protestant denomination is close to the size of the Catholic bloc.
There are 136 Catholics in the House of Representatives and 27 in the Senate. The Democratic Party enjoys a comfortable edge in Catholic representation in both houses: 75–61 in the House and 18–9 in the Senate.
