Anti-abortion demonstrators waved bloody photographs of foetuses, while pro-abortionists shouted "Baas in eigen buik!" (Boss in your own belly). Forty years ago, the first abortion clinic in the Netherlands elicited fierce emotions. Today, women can still get abortions but the issue remains controversial, both privately and politically.
On 27 February 1971 the first patient received an induced abortion in the Mildredhuis in Arnhem. Years of fierce discussion preceded it and years of fierce discussion would follow.
Taboo
Paul Bekkering, one of the founders of the Mildredhuis, retired from medicine in 1997. He recalls:
"We doctors were confronted with the question: doctor, can you help us? And we treated these vulnerable people in a safe, decent manner. You shouldn't underestimate the misery of illegal abortions, with a hundred complications or more. In my opinion, it's criminal when women are forced to resort to illegal practices."
In the late 1960s sex was still a taboo subject for many Dutch people. But change was in the air. The pill had just arrived. In the media and among doctors there was much discussion of contraception and legal abortion. In 1966 a member of the Supreme Court wrote that abortion on medical advice could not be illegal. The UN World Health Organisation had also declared that health was partly determined by spiritual and social well-being.
One thing led to another
As a young family doctor Bekkering concluded that: "The reality is that people have a serious problem. It is for them alone to decide, not for me, not for committees, not for a judge."
The Dutch women's movement took to the streets under the banner Baas in eigen buik. During a discussion about abortion, doctor Bekkering spoke in favour of legalising abortion. One thing led to another and soon he and other doctors in Arnhem were making plans for an abortion clinic.
The progressive broadcaster VARA collected money for a clinic and in February 1971 the Mildredhuis in Arnhem opened as the first abortion clinic in the Netherlands.
"We held a poll of family doctors. Eighty percent thought abortion should be possible and that, if necessary, there should be a separate clinic. So we had support."
Another ten years
There were no objections from the Public Health Inspectorate. In the first year 1,500 women were treated in Arnhem. Most of them came from abroad, some from very far away. More clinics opened the same year.
But it would be another ten years before legislation was passed legalising abortion. Melanie van Heijst has worked as an abortionist in Eindhoven for ten years:
"All the women get a thorough intake interview, followed by a second talk if necessary or a referral to a social worker. Treatment does not take place until the decision-making process is completed. Many women have already made up their minds by the time they make an appointment with their doctor or the clinic. There are many factors involved, but we try to check that the decision was taken properly."
A rich country
Even today, demonstraters protest outside the clinic in Eindhoven and other abortion clinics. They belive that only God can decide matters of life and death, that "abortion is murder". But their influence has diminished since the secularisation of Dutch society. Abortion clinics are part of today's medical infrastructure of the Netherlands and the procedure is covered by health insurance. However, there are still occasional political discussions about circumstantial conditions.
When Melanie van Heijst hears "emergency situations should never have to occur in a rich country like the Netherlands," she says she will stand up for "the large anonymous group". But her work is not just performing abortions, she also gives advice about contraception and about "how this decision can help her get her life back on the rails."
No solution
The number of abortions in the Netherlands has been remarkably low for many years, compared with other countries. Paul Bekkering believes it is the result of openness about sex and contraception. But, he adds, abortion clinics will continue to be needed, because things can always go wrong and illegal alternatives are not a solution.
Action groups like Schreeuw om leven (Cry for Life) remain fundamentally at odds with him.
(imm/ae)
These sites mentioned in the story have English webpages:
The Mildredhuis in Arnhem is now called the Mildred Rutgershuis
The Eindhoven clinic is part of CASA, Centres for Contraception, Sexuality and Abortion
Anti-abortion action group Cry for Life
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
It is a sign of true progress that the Dutch can openly discuss sexuality and abortion. The results include a low abortion rate, low rate of teen pregnancy, and other associated concerns. Clearly a society that cares about humanity.
Compare that with, for example, the US. Reduced access to sex education and clinics, result in much higher rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, and infant mortality. Puritanical attitudes there seem to be adding to society's ills.
CarajilloDulce: "Would you also suggest that people who have smoked tobacco, drunk alcohol, taken other recreational drugs or are over weight from lack of exercise and/or over eating also be denied health insurance for their problems?".....There is no comparison between one who smokes/drinks alcohol/etc and abortions of a human life. Your examples are of people who have acquired an illness; whereas, a woman, unless she is going to die from the pregancy, is borting a human life. A woman has right to do with her body as she pleases but that doesn't mean society has to support her if she is not in danger of losing her life. Non-emergency abortions should not be supported with tax money. It is amazing how we will quickly defend mass murderers by saying it is wrong to execute them but we look the other way when it is babies. And, they are babies no matter how you want to justify it. Don't have an abortion.
People who "choose" to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, take other recreational drugs, or become excessively over weight through lack of exercise and over eating have not "acquired" an illness in the way one contracts for example influenza. They have a choice to do as they choose with their bodies, and have chosen to abuse them. I doubt that many women who have abortions actually "chose" to get pregnant in such a deliberate manner. Does your approach include providing financial and other support for those babies born who's mothers are unable to care for them properly?
"Does your approach include providing financial and other support for those babies born who's mothers are unable to care for them properly?"...I support taking care of any baby, child, senior citizen, and any human who is un-capable of taking care of himself. I don't believe in standing-by and watching someone starve regarless of who they are and from whence they came. Whereas, I do not believe those who murder/kill innocent humans should be supported with tax dollars. Where I come from when one wants to have cosmetic surgury, one has to pay for it. Insurance does not cover it. It is not covered because it is not an illness. Abortions are not illnesses, therefore if one wants an abortion then one should pay for it and not with taxes. Your last sentence sounds like a justification for abortions. It gives the impression that you are saying "because mothers are unable to care for them properly, abortions are okay and justified." Do you realise how many women throughout the world have babies and are unable to care for them "properly" (subjective) but they still manage to take care of them. Maybe not to your standards but they still care for them both physically and spiritually. They give them the best they can and love them with all their hearts. This is all that is required of any parent. Give the baby a chance and don't have an abortion.
Having lived a good percentage of my adult life in South East Asia I am quite aware of the incredibly harsh environments in which children are raised, and much credit due to the parents who manage to do so. Unfortunately not all succeed with huge numbers of children growing up lacking basic health care, education, and protection in the home which results in slavery and abuse.I believe in health care and education for all, and the Nederlands was once famous for it's pragmatic approach to difficult social issues such as drug addiction, prostitution, abortion, and teenage sex education and pregnancy. The Dutch did not sweep these difficult issues under the carpet as the British did by simply legislating against them. They accepted that these things would happen and worked out sensible ways to educate in order to prevent them, and ways to deal with them once they'd happened. The truth is that women will continue to have abortions for whatever reasons and, whilst education and contraception will help reduce their numbers, they will still happen. If taxes/insurance stop paying for them then only the rich will be able to afford safe clinical procedures, whilst the poor will resort to back street abortion clinics. Fortunately we do not live in a theocracy where contraception is against the will of some supernatural entity who may or may not exist, and so the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent the pregnancy through education and contraception. Unfortunately contraception is not 100% effective, and some women are pressured by partners and even their peers into having unprotected sex. Obviously there are also those people who are totally negligent, though I doubt that makes up the majority of cases. We have to face the reality that we do not live in a perfect system, and deal with the consequences as best we can. As for saving lives, we could stop spending tax dollars on pointless wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The term "pro-abortion" isn't used in English, except maybe by right wing conservatives. I've never heard of anyone say "oh yeah, abortion is good!" The proper term is "pro-choice", meaning regardless of personal value or choices, they respect the rights of other woman to make their own choice.
Pro-choice is a term equally charged, meaning it is a mere option between two equally desirable choices for the pregnant woman: keep the baby or just give the unborn up. I believe abortions should not be covered by health insurance. Women should have to pay that on their own, except in cases like sexual abuse or life-threatening complications/risks.
Other than that, I thing women who have abortions should not be funded by the taxpayers on their murderous actions.
Would you also suggest that people who have smoked tobacco, drunk alcohol, taken other recreational drugs or are over weight from lack of exercise and/or over eating also be denied health insurance for their problems? Also, for the women who could not afford abortions under your regime and subsequently not afford to take care of their child, would money be available to help them raise that child (or, in your opinion, is life only precious when it's in the womb)?
Choice about what? Abortion. Choice is a euphemism for abortion, and you know it. The fetus has human DNA therefore it's a human being. Killing it is murder.
you are right the term "pro abortion" is not used in the US but I was under the impression most conservatives were "pro life" family values etc.. and the liberals were "pro choice" I could be wrong.
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.