Chapter 5 suggested that the discretion which the Abortion Act 1967 afforded to medical practitioners has been exercised in an extensive way to such a degree that, in medical practice if not in legal theory, abortion has been available ‘on request’ and for social reasons both in the private sector and, to a somewhat lesser degree, in the National Health Service (N.H.S.), and that the safeguards which were incorporated into the Act ostensibly to curb such practices have proved largely ineffective. Further evidence to support these suggestions will be provided in this chapter, which outlines the major legislative attempts made between 1969 and 1979 to curb perceived abuses of the law by amending the Act restrictively, and which focusses on the profession's reaction to such proposals.

The Stjohn–Stevas Bill (1969)

After the Act had been in operation for only fifteen months, Mr St John–Stevas introduced a ‘ten minute rule’ Bill entitled, ‘A Bill to improve the law governing abortion and the status and rights of the medical profession in relation thereto’. Clause 1 of the Bill sought to provide that one of the two opinions required by the Act was given by a consultant gynecologist holding office under the N.H. S. (or a doctor of equivalent status approved by the Minister of Health) and that the operation was performed by him or under his supervision. The declared aims of the Bill were to check racketeering, which the Act's safeguards had been unable to prevent, and to ensure that the operation was performed under the best possible conditions.