Platform: A case of a case-history too far?

As the 30th anniversary of the Abortion Act approaches, Jane Roe argues that the media's demand for first-person accounts by women of their experiences is getting out of hand, and risks obscuring the real issues

Back in the Sixties, a brave woman called Diane Munday stood up before the press and coolly disclosed details of her abortion. Her story came at a crucial time - the Abortion Bill received royal assent on 27 October, 1967 - and inevitably her words received widespread coverage, opening many eyes to the human realities behind a difficult subject.

Thirty years later, media hunger for abortion "case histories" is as sharp as ever - but with one important difference. Ms Munday's story shed light at a time of general ignorance. Ironically, today's case histories frequently have the reverse effect, distorting or inhibiting debate on the very subject they claim to illuminate.

As a pro-choice campaigner I have fielded dozens of requests over the past few weeks from television, radio and press journalists who plan to mark the coming 30th anniversary of the Abortion Act.

I'm glad that they choose to do so, because the subject certainly needs exposure. Many women still find it hard to obtain a termination on the National Health Service, and regional variations in service are a disgrace.Yet my heart sinks as the requests roll in, because the search is seldom for facts; what newspapers, magazines, radio stations and television companies require is case histories. I do the best I can to put journalists in touch with women who are prepared to speak about their experiences because, frankly, any coverage is better than none at all. But I do so with a deep sense of worry about the values that lie behind these requests - and about their effect on the subject itself.

My first concern is that women who are prepared to talk about their terminations are hard to find. This is not because the procedure itself is distressing but because the circumstances that lead women to seek an abortion usually are. Asking women to relive those moments is difficult, no matter how carefully phrased the questions.

But I press on because I know that failure to provide a "good" story often means no publicity for our cause. Recently I spent a year researching the provision of NHS abortions in every health authority in England and Wales and came up with significant findings.

Some newspapers published them. Others told me they would offer coverage only if I provided decent case histories to interest the public. Where I failed, the story simply didn't appear. For want of a juicy tale, there was no debate.

Also, many journalists are specific about the kind of case history they want, and this distorts the facts.

I am commonly asked to provide "one woman who was happy with her abortion, and one who was not". It reads well, and suggests balance. But think about the story as it will appear on the page, with equal prominence given to each case. Research shows clearly that the vast majority of women have no problems with their abortion. But which tale will generate most public interest and concern? Naturally, the minority tale of anguish and doubt. The facts are therefore denied by the use of real women's stories.

Yet at least this coverage flies under the banner of fair debate, even it fails to provide proper balance. Some media organisations do not even aim for fairness. Many case history requests come from news organisations that have decided which angle promises to be most fruitful before they pick up the telephone. When they do come on, their demands can be damagingly detailed.

One television company recently asked me to provide "the mother of a woman who'd had an abortion and who didn't agree with it", also, "the daughter of a woman who'd had an abortion but the daughter was anti".

Another sought "an under-16-year-old brought up in a highly religious family who has had an abortion". Another was for a married woman whose husband objected to abortion; yet another was for a woman who had an abortion, then had children and subsequently regretted the termination.

What is clear from these requests is that the focus has radically changed. The story is being plundered rather than exposed. I'm often told that the women I provide for interview are "too happy" with their decision to have an abortion; but most women are, that's the truth.

When Ms Munday spoke out she made an important contribution to a serious debate about legalising abortion. There are still significant issues to be dealt with, but for some journalists, the anniversary merely provides a peg on which to hang interesting stories about women's experiences. The impression is then given that the subject has been "covered". That's not true. Lurid tales of minority dilemmas and personal anguish are no substitute for honest, informative journalism.

I'm not saying that there is no place at all for these personal tales. But I do believe that, in such a potentially damaging arena, where human feelings as well as public understanding are at stake, case histories should be used more sparingly and with greater tact, purpose, sensitivity and conscience.

I will go on trying to help journalists who call me because, as I have said, a poor debate is better than none at all. But perhaps for their part, writers and editors could think of new ways of tackling - imaginatively, readably - the serious issues that still remain to be settled: not least the fact that, 30 years on, a quick, safe abortion on the NHS is still an impossible dream for many women.

Jane Roe is campaign manager for the Abortion Law Reform Association. The organisation was the pressure group behind the 1967 Abortion Act.