Two weeks into the annual State of the Nation (SON) Debate in the Senate, and three women have so far been the only contributors.

And the three – Kerensia Morrison (JLP), who opened for the Government; Sophia Fraser Binns (PNP), who opened for the Opposition; and, Saphire Longmore (JLP), the psychiatrist who recently defeated breast cancer – have all made excellent contributions to what is building up into probably the most interesting SON in a long while.

The truth is that, for a start, the debate promises to touch on some very important issues facing the parliament and the country, including crime and violence, especially against women and children; the emerging cannabis industry; the bauxite/alumina industry; and even simpler things, like insurance for pregnant women and, of course, the latest on dancehall heroine, Spice.

The presenters have made some really valid points, and there is no doubt that the contributions have been well researched and presented, unlike in recent years when the debate seemed to have been a waste of time and a very boring exercise.

But, despite all that, it seems obvious that there are some equally serious issues which the women will not touch during this debate.

Take for example, West Rural St Andrew’s MP Juliet Cuthbert private member’s motion (PMM) in the House of Representatives, which urges the House to take steps to repeal section 72 and 73 of the Offences Against the Person Act, “and substitute therewith a civil law titled ‘Termination of Pregnancy’, as recommended by an Abortion Policy review group in 2007′.

This report, including its recommendations, had been lying in the library of Parliament for over a decade waiting for discussions, until Cuthbert took up the issue in her resolution which was tabled in June. However, since she started the debate the response from the women has been very limited.

One would have thought that it would have given members, especially the women on both sides of the aisle, a chance to finally clarify their positions on the matter for public consumption, and a possible vote among the parliamentarians, or a referendum, to decide how to deal with it once and for all.

However, apart from Cuthbert, the main participant has been the Minister of Health, Dr Christopher Tufton, who was able to to put the matter in perspective and paint clearer picture of the situation so far, and how he plans to proceed with it.

The minister noted that the current legislation is embodied in sections 72 and 73 of the Offences Against the Person Act, and which actually dates back to January 1, 1864.

Section 72 of that Act makes it a felony “for any pregnant woman, or any other person, who with intent to procure such woman’s miscarriage unlawfully administers any poisons, or other noxious things, or who unlawfully uses any instrument or other means with the intention or with intent to procure her miscarriage”.

Section 72 also prescribes a punishment of imprisonment for life, with or without hard labour, on conviction.

Section 73 makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to unlawfully supply or procure the means to cause a miscarriage, knowing that they were to be used for this purpose.

According to the minister, the thrust of the Ministry of Health is to empower the population to make informed decisions with respect to their health.

However, the ministry is faced with investing in sexual and reproductive health services that are wide and far reaching. According to him, up to now, the ministry has been focusing on counselling, information and education, safe motherhood, and ante natal care, such as safe delivery care.

Dr Tufton also informed the House of Representatives that his ministry is pursuing developing a sexual reproductive and health policy that would address the issues of maternal mortality.

“A sexual and reproductive health policy will create a framework for identifying effective strategies to reduce maternal mortality rates,” he noted.

But, at the same time, he admitted that while the Offences Against the Person Act has long prohibited unlawful abortions in Jamaica, there has been evolution in English law and guidelines on unlawful termination of pregnancies which have not been adopted in our jurisdiction.

In the meantime, the ministry, through the National Family Planning Board, in responding to requests from the cabinet for broad consultations on key sexual reproductive health issues, conducted surveys and consultative discussions in 2016 with community representatives on the acceptable parameters of a national policy on the termination of pregnancy.

He said that of over 350 of the community members surveyed in that exercise, responded as follows: termination where pregnancy represents a risk to the life of the baby- 78 per cent agreed; termination where pregnancy presented a risk to the life of the mother -86 percent; and in the case of rape -71 per cent.

“While these public sentiments are an important guide to policy makers across all sectors, the Ministry of Health further recognised that it has a critical role to play in providing guidance on the health specific implications of these issues.,” he argued.

He noted that in 1975, the then Minister of Health established ministerial policy under which health personnel (registered medical practitioners) could in fact terminate pregnancy on a very limited basis. However, two doctors had to agree that there was a risk to the mother to facilitate termination.

He said that an “Abortion Statement of Policy” paper which was laid in the House in January, 1975, was intended have the relevant sections of the Offences Against the Person Act amended for clarity, as to the circumstances in which abortion could be lawfully performed in Jamaica, to include rape, carnal abuse and incest as lawful grounds for an abortion. However, the law was never amended to achieve those objectives.

But, the minister said that he felt that it was time for the issue to be addressed.

“We are travelling a long way on this issue, without a definitive position, and I think that the time is now ripe for that,” Dr Tufton told the House.

He noted that the final report of the Ministry of Health’s abortion Policy Review Advisory Group was laid on the table of the House in January 2008. On March 27, 2008, a resolution was passed to appoint a special select committee, to sit jointly with a similar committee appointed by the Senate, to consider and report on the recommendation of the advisory group.

He said that 17 meetings were held by the group and a report was generated but, in terms of what followed:

“Sad to say, nothing,” the minister disappointingly admitted.

However, he concluded that in the interest and concern from a public health perspective, he felt the need for a joint select committee to review the report, including its recommendations, and if there is need for additional work, it would be done.

“My perspective, as the Minister of Health and a member of the Cabinet, is that I will take responsibility. It is my responsibility to take whatever is decided, in terms of the recommendations to Cabinet, so that an appropriate decision can be made, and it be brought here for approval,” Tufton stated.

“I support the motion to the extent that the matter requires attention and firm decision, and that is the proposal on this point,” he added.

Cuthbert responded by saying thanks to the members who had served on the advisory committee in 2007/8, including then Minister of Health and current Minister of State in the Ministry of National Security, Rudyard Spence; Minister of Labour and Social Security, Shahine Robinson; Opposition spokesperson on Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Lisa Hanna; and MPs Marisa Dalrymple Phillibert and Natalie Neita Headley.

She moved that in the meantime, the motion be referred to the Human Resources and Social Development Committee of the House, in an effort to get some form of agreement from the House on the issues she raised in her motion.

The committee is chaired by Opposition spokesman on education, Ronald Thwaites.