– My primary position is that the only way to achieve equality before the law, without subjective interference or judgment from others, is to have a uniform border and without a tribunal, says Tilde Broch Østvold to Dagsavisen.
She is a senior physician and specialist in obstetrics and gynecology at Stavanger University Hospital (SUS), and sat on the government-appointed abortion committee that reviewed the 50-year-old abortion law. A majority of the committee recommended that the right to self-determined abortion be extended from 12 to 18 weeks, which the government also accepts in the proposal to be voted on in the Storting on 3 December.
But, Østborg points out: The abortion boards get along anyway.
New tribunals
She and a small minority in the abortion committee did not agree that tribunals should still decide whether women can have an abortion after week 18. The government’s proposal states that new, professionally independent tribunals should be established. The new tribunals must be chaired by a doctor, have a member with health and social work expertise, and also be strengthened with a lawyer.
– The tribunal has been proposed to be expanded to include lawyers, and then the number of women is increased from 1 to 2, to 1 to 3. I don’t think that is sufficiently compensated, says Østborg.
– When this was discussed in the committee, the purpose was that the lawyer should have a kind of secretarial function, that one should see that the decisions were designed in a way that stood up in terms of administration. But what has ended up is that the lawyer is part of the tribunal with the right to vote. It is a completely different situation. I’m not sure if that’s a good solution. I think that some of the proposal involves a lack of understanding of how the tribunals are practically carried out today, she tells Dagsavisen.
Østborg’s critical approach to abortion boards is probably shaped by her own experiences of sitting on such a board for several years. She had some principled thoughts about this even before she joined an abortion board, and her motivation for participating was to manage the task in a way that is as least burdensome as possible for those who attend.
– I think that sitting on an abortion committee is demanding because you meet women and couples in crisis, and you sit with a kind of mixed role. Formally speaking, you only have to make a legal assessment of the claim that is made, but it is clear that it is difficult not to comfort and try to be a good fellow human being as well, says Østborg.
– It feels like imposing an additional burden on people who are already in a difficult situation. I think it’s about the fact that the decision ultimately lies with me and a colleague. I would think it would be perfectly fine to have these conversations if they were about charting thoughts, feelings, choices, doubts and ambivalence. But the fact that you then also have the opportunity to make decisions, I think gets in the way of a good conversation, she emphasizes.
– The women are nervous, desperate and scared. No matter how much I adjust the office chair and serve coffee and offer Kleenex, there is no way around the fact that we are in a power imbalance, where I have the power and authority to make a decision that will primarily and almost exclusively affect their life and their future, says Østborg, and adds:
– It is also the case that approximately 70-80 per cent of these women are pregnant with a desired pregnancy. They may have found a name, they have planned, they have painted a room, they have bought a few bodysuits. They were initially completely set on becoming parents, and then they receive one of the worst messages they can receive in their life, where there is a serious illness or injury to the fetus, she says, and adds that the burden for them approx. . The 20-30 per cent who apply for social indications may well be that heavy.
– They have to unfold their lives and tell about difficult and painful relationships, lack of income, drugs, violence, or other things to justify that they do not envisage continuing the pregnancy. I think that the burden there is if possible even greater, she believes.
Read also: Nav researchers point to one main reason for the explosion in disability among young people
– Very, very happy
If it had been up to Østborg, women would have been allowed to appear in the court even after week 18. But she saw that a compromise on self-determined abortion up to week 18 was a unifying solution.
– There were four of us who took out a special note that we thought it was difficult to stand up for the tribunal at all, but we were keen to advocate for something that was feasible and that it was predominantly likely that there would be a change in the law , says Østborg, who is also very pleased that the 50-year-old abortion law is finally being revised.
– Regardless of what one might think, the fact is that the legal text from 1978, it does not hold up well in 2024, neither when it comes to language use nor the attitude towards women, the doctor believes.
– The old abortion law also states that an abortion must take place in a hospital. A great many abortions today do not. There are many formulations that do not fit in the old law. I am very, very happy that there will be a revision. I do not think that a law should stand for 50 years at a time. The law should reflect developments in society. It should be evaluated within a five-year period.
Read also: Three years after threats of fines: The teachers are still not equipped to deal with violence (+)
Low-key debate
She is surprised by the political debate after she helped deliver the NOU, which was called “Abortion in Norway – new law and better services”. But while the abortion fight in the 1970s was fierce and polarizing, Østborg has experienced the debate in 2024 as strikingly low-key and characterized by a lot of agreement.
– If you had asked 3-4 years ago if people would have thought that there would be a big discussion around the so-called radical proposal to extend to week 18, I think most people would have said yes. The fact that it has now been more low-key than before is perceived as nice, but at the same time a bit funny, she says.
Also read: “Snøfall 2”: Christmas magic shines on Oslo Nye (+)
Difficult case in the Right
Nor is there particularly great tension connected to the vote on the new abortion law on 3 December. Ever since early autumn, it has appeared relatively certain that there will be a majority in the Storting for an extension to 18 weeks. The government needs 85 out of 169 votes to get a majority, and already has 80 votes together with SV, Rødt, Venstre and MDG.
In addition, the Center Party, the FRP and the Conservative Party have exempted their representatives. More representatives have already signaled that they will vote for 18 weeks, and only five more votes are needed.
In particular, the issue has obviously been difficult within the Conservative Party, which is actually in favor of keeping the abortion law as it is. On Thursday, it became known that the party is exempting its representatives, and the Conservative Party states in a press release that the party’s representatives “disagree on where the limit for self-determined abortion should be”. Some of Høyre’s representatives will thus vote for 12 weeks, others for 18.
KrF, which does not want a change in the abortion law, has expressed disappointment that the Conservative Party has exempted its people.
SV has previously said so VG that they will vote no to the part that deals with late-term abortions after week 18. In the government’s proposal, it will be up to the abortion committee what the condition of the fetus will mean for the pregnancy, the birth and the child’s upbringing. In the past, medical conditions in the fetus could give direct access to abortion.
Read also: The method that amazes: This GP makes people go to work
Read comment: Donald Trump is well on his way to a police state
Read the portrait with the Nav boss: – Unpleasant to get that attention (+)