Protect Women

We await Mel Gibson's blockbuster about the defeat of assisted suicide in Scotland, defeated at its final stage by 69 votes to 47, having passed its first stage by 70 to 56, since these things can never survive proper scrutiny. Therefore, the Bill in England and Wales is also going to run out of time, and Wales had already rejected this measure at devolved level. Now we must win the peace, from disabled people's rights, including to benefits, to palliative care, which hitherto has scarcely been mentioned except in relation to assisted suicide. And there is always another battle, as Sam Merriman writes:

More than 1,000 doctors and medical professionals have urged peers to oppose plans to let women legally terminate their baby up to birth ahead of a crucial House of Lords vote on Wednesday.

The letter from 1,015 senior obstetricians, gynaecologists, midwives, and medical professors warns peers of their 'grave concerns' with the legislation that would decriminalise abortion 'up to birth'.

In the biggest shake up of abortion laws for half a century, MPs last year voted to allow women to abort their baby for any reason - including if they are not satisfied with the baby's sex.

The surprise amendment was tabled by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi and attached to the Government's Crime and Policing Bill, after being debated for just 46 minutes in the Commons.

It passed with 379 MPs voting in favour and 137 against and was subsequently incorporated into the Bill. Peers will today vote on the amendment before the legislation returns to the Commons.

Now medical professionals have written to peers ahead of the vote to urge them to back an amendment that would stop the attempt to allow abortion up to birth from becoming law.

The letter, seen by the Mail, warns that it would pose 'serious risks to women's health, particularly given the medical dangers associated with late, self-administered abortions'.

The group of doctors and nurses are also calling for peers to back another amendment that would 'protect women' by reinstating in-person consultations before abortion pills can be prescribed.

The so-called 'pills by post' scheme - introduced during the pandemic but made permanent in 2022 - has enabled women to access abortion pills without consulting their doctor.

Campaigners fear this increases the risk of coercion. In one case, 40-year-old Stuart Worby spiked a woman's drink with abortion pills, leading her to suffer a miscarriage.

The letter adds that reintroducing face-to-face appointments is 'an important part of safeguarding (to protect against coerced abortion) and would enable medical professionals to ensure that abortion pills are only prescribed in cases when it is both medically safe and legally compliant to do so'.

Peers will have the chance to remove the proposals entirely from the legislation with the Crime and Policing Bill being scrutinised at report stage in the Lords, with votes expected on Wednesday.

Two amendments have been tabled - one calling to remove the proposals from the bill entirely, and the other to reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional before abortion pills can be prescribed.

Both amendments are backed by a team of notable pro-life, pro-choice female peers, including former Olympian Baroness Davies, former Ofsted head Baroness Spielman and former president of the British Medical Association Baroness Hollins.

Peers are now hopeful of voting the two Lords amendments through - meaning MPs will have to consider the changes when the bill returns to the Commons.

Baroness Monckton, who tabled the amendment to remove 'clause 208' from the Bill, said: 'This radical clause was added to the Bill after less than an hour of debate by MPs, and without the necessary scrutiny required for an issue of such seriousness. Whatever one's views on abortion, this is not how responsible laws are made.'

Baroness Stroud said: 'I, and many others, warned of the dangers of the "pills by post" scheme when it was introduced. Sadly, those warnings have come true.

'This change has widespread public support and would better protect women by helping prevent further cases of coerced or dangerous late-term abortions linked to the pills by post scheme.'

It came as a pro-choice former justice minister also raise concerns about the 'unintended consequences' of the 'abortion up to birth' clause in the Crime and Policing Bill.

Former Tory justice minister Laura Farris - who was due to respond on behalf of the Government to an identical amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill in 2024, which fell when the General Election was called - has warned peers that the consequences have 'not been fully thought through'.

Her letter to peers adds: 'A few hours of debate, in the context of a Government Bill, without the amendment even having been considered at Committee stage in the Commons, is not the right approach for this.

'If it is the will of Parliament to make this change, the Government should facilitate proper policy and legal thinking on this matter and make time for proper scrutiny.'

And as even The Times admits:

Forty-six minutes of backbench debate. That was the length of time the House of Commons afforded last year to discussing the biggest change to abortion laws in more than half a century. Clause 208 of the Crime and Policing Bill means that it would no longer be an offence for a woman to induce her own abortion at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason. It was not in Labour’s manifesto, but was nonetheless voted through by 379 to 137.

Rarely has a piece of legislation so freighted with ethical dangers, and so heavy with unintended consequences, passed so lightly. For what this amendment to the bill, introduced by the backbencher Tonia Antoniazzi, makes possible is for a woman to abort a viable foetus right up to birth without her act being criminal and without the risk of prosecution. Now the legislation is passing through the House of Lords, where Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest has proposed an amendment to delete clause 208 entirely. In considering the implications ushered in by the clause, it is worth revisiting the existing UK abortion law, and the thinking behind it. In 1990 the limit for when a woman might legally have an abortion was reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. The reason was that advances in neonatal care had made 24 weeks the new limit of foetal viability: that was the stage when a baby could survive outside the mother, and thereby accrued some independent rights and protections.

We are told that law still stands. But under clause 208, those protections that have historic­ally been granted to a viable foetus are effectively erased, long past the point where a baby could have survived independently. And for vulnerable mothers, it raises the prospect of exactly the fearful, squalid and risky back-street abortions that David Steel’s 1967 Abortion Act was meant to avoid. That is why it should be opposed not only by those who are against abortion per se for reasons of faith, but also those who are pro-choice.

As constructed, the legislation would decriminalise a woman who ended her own pregnancy at any stage after 24 weeks, yet would continue to criminalise anyone who assisted her in doing so. That creates a perilous landscape, particularly for coerced and isolated women. The introduction of abortion “pills by post” during the pandemic has altered the territory of unwanted pregnancies, permitting women to perform their own procedures. Initially a temporary measure, they are now a permanent part of health provision in England and Wales. Although intended only for pregnancies of up to ten weeks, some women are, dangerously, using them much later. An amendment by Baroness Stroud seeks to address this by bringing back in-person consultations before prescription.

Before such pills were introduced, there were only three convictions of women in 150 years for illegal abortions in the UK. Since 2022, however, there has been a small but notable rise in police investigations and charges. Some of these have been ill-judged and heavy-handed, at times involving women who have been subjected to coercion and domestic violence or even suffered late miscarriages. Yet while there is every argument for stronger guidelines and greater sensitivity in dealing with such cases, decriminalisation of this type is not the answer. Hard cases make bad law, and this culpably unexamined change is likely to lead to more desperation and misery, not less. Baroness Monckton’s amendment should be supported.

The Church of England not only supported but very largely wrote the 1967 Abortion Act, and it matters theologically in Anglicanism what the people in the pews think, but the question will be whether the Lords Spiritual attended and voted at all. The Green Party is absolutely correct that the Crown Nominations Commission is no way to fill 26 seats in Parliament. It is certainly no way to fill them with people who turned up only to dine, if they ever came in at all.