AS we rightly denounce the roll-back of abortion rights in the US – where access to contraception is also under attack – and push for long overdue reform to Northern Ireland’s punitive abortion laws, the importance of women’s bodily autonomy should be at the forefront of our minds.

How then can a scheme in Scotland which dilutes the meaning of reproductive choice for some of the most vulnerable women in our society be condoned? A new programme is set to launch in Dundee which will provide counselling and intensive support to women who have had two or more children taken into the care system – but only if they agree to go on long-term contraception.

The contraception sanctioned by the project includes the implant, injections or coil, all of which are reversible but intended to be long-lasting. Run by Pause, an English charity which will be financed by The Robertson Trust, lottery funding and the Scottish Government, the programme aims to “give women the chance to pause and take control of their lives”. But how meaningful is that “control” if it has been brought about by incentivising women to make a particular decision about their reproductive health?

Offering women support and information to make the best choices for themselves and their families should absolutely be ingrained in our health and social care policy, but there are other projects which do just that without coercion. Yes, the Pause scheme is voluntary, but when the participants have already lost children and are in desperate need of support, their ability to say “no” because they don’t like the conditions is clearly diminished.

This paternalistic approach only serves to reinforce the belief that the state should have a say in who should have children and when – and we don’t need to look far for the evidence that the question of “who” is tightly interwoven with conceptions of class, of social desirability, of disability. The realities and assumptions of parenting capacity are impacted by inequalities, like every other aspect of our lives, and allowing those value judgements to be made by those in positions of power is a slippery slope.

Leading feminist policy organisation Engender Scotland has likened the scheme to the controversial family cap policy. Alys Mumford, communications and engagement manager at Engender, said: “It is foundational to Engender that women be able to have control over whether, and when, they have children. Contraception has helped to give women freedom and autonomy, but we have deep concerns about women being required to use birth control in order to access support that they need.

“There is a long and ignoble history of attempts to use social security, public services, and cash payments to induce women living in poverty to use birth control. This thinking is reflected in the UK Government’s two-child cap and attendant rape clause, and is a way of the state coercing women’s reproductive choices.”

The rationale for capping the child element of Child Tax Credit and Universal Credit at two children is that the government should not be financially responsible for people who are, on the one hand, not making enough money to cover the costs of their children, and on the other, too selfish, audacious, stupid (insert adjective here) to avoid having a third child. Never mind that someone’s financial circumstances can change after they’ve had their children – this is the mindset of the Tory brain which spawned this policy. If we are certain – and I am – that this is wrong, how can we rest easy while Dundee City Council celebrates that the Pause initiative could save them up to £1.6 million in five years by preventing the births of poor people’s children?

Of course, being poor is not the only issue at play for the women targeted by this scheme – with more than one child removed into care, their circumstances will be complex and difficult to manage, and the best interests of their children should be paramount. But we know that poverty and adverse experiences in a parent’s own childhood are major factors in cases where parents are unable to care for their children. By focusing funding on inducing women in this situation to take contraception in exchange for counselling, this scheme not only raises ethical concerns, it fails to address the root of the problem.

Imagine how much money could be saved (and, more to the point, how many lives could be improved) if we pulled families out of poverty and equipped parents with the tools to enable their children to thrive. There is evidence to show that the most rewarding investment we can make during the course of a person’s life is within their earliest years. This is the crucial point at which a person’s future success, by numerous measurements, can be shaped.

Experts in early childhood development have called for greater investment in children and families during these years – because reducing inequalities from birth can reduce inequalities for life. The entrenched inequalities in our society come at a huge cost to our health, social care, education and criminal justice systems. The solution is not to prevent the existence of the people who generate this cost – it’s to prevent the social and economic conditions leading to it.

Engender has expressed concerns about how the approach taken by the Pause project will “impact on women who are already marginalised”. Alys Mumford explained: “We know that disabled mothers in Scotland are more likely to have children removed into care due to deeply ingrained prejudices about who can be a parent. We also have concerns about women whose religious beliefs prevent them from taking contraception, as well as women unable to use birth control for health reasons.”

User-led learning disability charity People First has echoed this unease, noting that a “lack of support” for parents with learning disabilities to continue to care for their children has been widely highlighted by disability rights advocates. People First Scotland chairperson Keith Lynch said that the removal of children into care in this situation was “a destructive cycle that causes parents and children deep trauma”.

He added: “Currently the laws in Scotland can remove [people with learning disabilities’] right to make decisions about our own lives. However, many of us also experience this without legal intervention. Our decisions regarding relationships and our bodies are often taken away from us. What we need is support that allows us to make informed decisions about all aspects of our life, free from judgement or paternalistic attitudes.”

This emphasis on supported, informed decision-making is an approach which the Scottish Government has committed to through its learning disability strategy, and it is one which can and should be applied to all parents. The overarching ethos promoted in Scotland on how to support and engage people, including – and perhaps most importantly – those most vulnerable, from birth through to death, is to start from a place which encourages the active participation of the individual in the decisions which affect their life.

It is not in dispute that the people behind the Pause programme likely believe that they are acting in the best interests of women and children, but on closer scrutiny, their methods and the message which this sends seem entirely at odds with the values of this broader strategic approach.

The provision of contraception and information on how to access it is vital for many people, particularly women. The offer of free counselling for those whose mental health, addiction and other issues are hindering their capacity as a parent is commendable. Making one conditional on the other undermines the good intentions of both.