During a debate on introducing extreme changes to our abortion laws, which might make it more likely that healthy babies are aborted at home for any reason, as much as birth, pro-life MPs called for the repeal of the pills-by-post abortion scheme – the true reason behind the rise in prosecutions for illegal abortions – and highlighted the implications of the removal of abortion from the criminal law.
The Westminster Hall debate, which took place on Monday afternoon, was triggered by an internet petition calling for “the UK government to remove abortion from criminal law”.
It took place shortly before Report Stage of the Crime and Policing Bill, to which Tonia Antoniazzi MP has added an amendment (NC1), the substance of which overlaps considerably with the e-petition.
Antoniazzi’s amendment would mean that “for the needs of the law related to abortion… no offence is committed by a girl acting in relation to her own pregnancy”. As the amendment’s own explanatory statement makes clear, it will apply “at any gestation”, as much as birth. It would change the law so it will not be illegal for ladies to perform their very own abortions for any reason, and at any point as much as and through birth.
This would make it more likely that healthy babies are aborted at home for any reason, as much as birth.
Pills-by-post: the true reason for the rise in prosecutions for illegal abortions
Plenty of MPs pushing for the removal of abortion from the criminal law made reference to the small increase within the number of girls being prosecuted for illegal abortions since 2022.
Tony Vaughan MP, who opened the controversy, noted that three women had been convicted for illegal abortions from 1861 to 2022, but that since 2022, there had been an uptick in women being charged for abortion related offences. Fellow Labour MP, Stella Creasy also feigned puzzlement about this rise, saying, “We haven’t been in a position to resolve why there was such a surge.”
Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine also raised the identical point without offering any explanation as to why.
However, the true reason behind the, albeit relatively small, variety of recent cases of illegal late-term abortions is the ‘pills-by-post’ scheme, which was supported by Tonia Antoniazzi, Diana Johnson, Stella Creasy, and leading abortion providers BPAS and MSI Reproductive Choices (Marie Stopes). DUP MP Carla Lockhart was clear on this point in the course of the debate. The “pills-by-post scheme has enabled women, either dishonestly or because they’ve miscalculated their gestational age, to acquire abortion pills beyond the 10-week limit when at-home abortions are legal and thought of protected for ladies -they are, after all, never protected for the infant -and even beyond the 24-week upper deadline for abortions on this country”.
“There is a transparent alternative solution: end the pills-by-post scheme and reinstate in-person consultations”.
A possible increase in late-term abortions
Pro-life MPs argued that the e-petition calls on the federal government to, and NC1 would, remove offences that make it illegal for a lady to perform her own abortion at any point all through to birth. They don’t outline circumstances wherein it will proceed to be an offence for a lady to perform her own abortion – the changes to the law would apply throughout all nine months of pregnancy and wouldn’t exclude sex-selective abortions.
This can be the largest change to abortion laws because the Abortion Act was introduced in 1967.
DUP MP Jim Shannon said, “Depending on the model of decriminalisation, the effect might be wide enough to incorporate de facto access to abortion for ladies as much as the purpose of birth for any reason. There would, for instance, be no enforceable prohibition on abortion on the premise of the sex of the unborn baby that will have criminal repercussions.”
Vaughan sought to downplay the variety of late-term abortions, but probably the most recent stats show that in 2022, England and Wales saw 3,484 abortions at 20 weeks or later – a median of greater than nine each day.
Carla Lockhart pointed to New Zealand: “In reference to other countries, the hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no such thing as a evidence that decriminalisation will increase abortions. What is his response to the instance of New Zealand, where abortion was decriminalised in March 2020, and in that 12 months there was a 43% increase in late-term abortions, between 20 weeks gestation and birth, compared with 2019?”.
Return of in-person appointments
Carla Lockhart noted among the dire consequences of abortion pills-by-post, including the greater than 10,000 women “who took a minimum of one abortion pill, provided by the NHS, at home in 2020 needed hospital treatment for unintended effects – comparable to multiple in 17 women” and the Stuart Worby case wherein a person poisoned a pregnant woman with abortion pills, obtained via pills-by-post causing her to lose her baby.
“All those cases might have been prevented if abortion providers had not lobbied, within the face of warnings about precisely those sorts of incidents occurring, for the removal of in-person appointments where health risks might be assessed and the lady’s identity and gestational age accurately verified. It is that last point about ensuring that a girl’s gestational age is accurately verified that has not directly led to the controversy we’re having today,” Lockhart said.
“There is a transparent alternative solution: end the pills-by-post scheme and reinstate in-person consultations.”
Sir Edward Leigh warned that removing abortion from the criminal law de facto makes it possible to have an abortion at home as much as birth:
“One of the justifications for the Abortion Act 1967 was that it will end back-street abortions; indeed, whether we prefer it or not, we’ve got abortion on demand in protected environments. If the proposals we’re discussing go ahead and, de facto, it becomes possible to have an abortion at home as much as birth, does he not think that would endanger women’s health? Is he not nervous about that, or are the movers of the petition not nervous about that?”
Pro-abortion MPs concerned about Stella Creasy’s extreme abortion proposal
Even pro-abortion MPs reminiscent of Antoniazzi were concerned by Creasy’s proposed amendment. Antoniazzi said Creasy’s “recent clause is markedly broader by way of the scope of change proposed to the long-standing settlement that gives for abortion services. This framework is complex.”
“I actually have concerns about overturning that entire framework at the present time and replacing it with a mechanism that will leave power within the hands of a single Minister. Does the Minister agree that such powers would mark a sea change within the long-standing, underlying framework that gives for abortion in England and Wales?”
Sadik Al-Hassan claimed that England and Wales “have the harshest punishment on this planet for illegal abortion: life imprisonment”. However, this ignores the proven fact that the suspended sentence ultimately given to Carla Foster has likely set a precedent that implies that custodial sentences might now be unlikely for similar future cases.
 During a debate on introducing extreme changes to our abortion laws, which might make it more likely that healthy babies...){kind=link}