Peers challenge extreme abortion law proposals in Crime and Policing Bill

Peers are set to challenge extreme abortion proposals within the Crime and Policing Bill. 

Baroness Monckton has tabled an amendment to remove Clause 191 from the Bill, which proposes to decriminalise women performing their very own abortions for any reason and at any point, including late in pregnancy. 

A separate amendment tabled by Baroness Stroud seeks to reinstate the requirement of a face-to-face appointment with a medical skilled before abortion pills are prescribed for at-home use. The requirement was removed throughout the Covid pandemic. Supporters of the amendment argue that restoring in-person consultations would scale back the chance of abuses and coercion, and permit medical professionals to make accurate assessments of a lady’s gestational age.

It follows quite a lot of high profile cases by which pills procured through the ‘pills by post’ service were unlawfully used. In one incident, a mother was jailed after she used them to abort her baby between 32 and 34 weeks. In one other case, a person was jailed after secretly giving abortion pills to his girlfriend at his home, causing her to lose the infant. 

Peers supporting the tabled amendments argue that the proposals within the Bill, if passed, will result in an increase in late-term at-home abortions, and put more women at serious risk of medical complications. They are also concerned that the changes will result in more sex-selective abortions. Abortion provider BPAS was recently accused of legitimising sex-selective abortions for failing to state unequivocally in its guidance that the practice is unlawful. 

Ahead of tabling her amendment, Baroness Monckton said the proposals represent “an extreme social change for which there isn’t any public pressure or demand, and will have tragic consequences for ladies, in addition to resulting in increased numbers of abortions of viable babies”.

“This radical clause was added to the Bill after lower than an hour of debate by MPs, and without the needed scrutiny required for a problem of such seriousness. Whatever one’s views on abortion, this will not be how responsible laws are made.”

Baroness Stroud said her amendment would protect women.

“Supporters of decriminalising abortion as much as birth cite a small variety of prosecutions of girls for illegal late-term abortions in recent times. The increase in such cases is a direct results of the ‘pills by post’ scheme, whereby women can receive abortion pills without an in-person consultation to confirm their gestational age is inside the legal limit,” she said. 

“The solution to such cases will not be to make matters worse by removing the legal deterrent against women performing their very own at-home abortions as much as birth, which might likely endanger women further, but to reinstate in-person consultations.

“I, and plenty of others, warned of the risks of the ‘pills by post’ scheme when it was introduced. Sadly, those warnings have come true.”

Catherine Robinson, spokesperson for Right To Life UK, said that if the proposals grow to be law, they might be “essentially the most significant change to abortion laws for the reason that Abortion Act was introduced in 1967”.

“The law change would likely result in the lives of many more women being endangered due to risks involved with self-administered late-term abortions and in addition tragically result in an increased variety of viable babies’ lives being ended well beyond the 24-week abortion closing date and beyond the purpose at which they’d give you the chance to survive outside the womb,” she said.

She added, “The abortion lobby is pushing to decriminalise abortion to cover up the disastrous effects of its irresponsible pills by post scheme, which endangers women by removing the requirement for in-person consultations before abortion pills could also be prescribed.”