‘Cruel' criminalisation of women over abortion must end, says MP ahead of vote
Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi said her amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill would remove women from the criminal justice system in relation to their own pregnancies, ensuring they could not face investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment.
She said the UK's 'Victorian' abortion law is 'increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls' and that her amendment is the 'right change at the right time' and a 'once-in-a-generation' opportunity to bring change.
Abortion in England and Wales remains a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability.
It is also legal to take prescribed medication at home if a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant.
Efforts to change the law to protect women from prosecution follow repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th-century law, the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019.
Ms Antoniazzi said her proposed 'narrow, targeted' measure does not change how abortion services are provided or the rules under the 1967 Abortion Act.
She said: 'This piece of legislation will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help. As I have said it before, and I will say it again, just what public interest is this serving? This is not justice, it is cruelty and it has got to end.'
She added that her amendment is backed by 180 MPs from across the Commons and 50 organisations including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG).
Tonia Antoniazzi has tabled an amendment to decriminalise abortion (Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA)
The MP assured her colleagues the current 24-week limit would remain, abortions would still require the approval and signatures of two doctors, and that healthcare professionals 'acting outside the law and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy would still be criminalised, as they are now'.
A separate amendment has also been put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy and goes further by not only decriminalising abortion, but also seeks to 'lock in' the right of someone to have one and protect those who help them.
Ms Creasy's amendment will also be debated but 'will fall' if Ms Antoniazzi's is passed by MPs, the Commons heard.
Referring to Ms Creasy's amendment, Ms Antoniazzi said while she agreed 'more comprehensive reform of abortion law is needed', such change of that scale should take place through a future separate piece of legislation.
Conservative MP and Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh, speaking against both amendments, described them as 'not pro-woman' and argued they 'would introduce sex-selective abortion'.
DUP MP Carla Lockhart insisted 'both lives matter', saying the proposed amendments 'would be bad for both women and unborn children'.
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who is not present for Tuesday's vote, outlined her opposition to both amendments in a letter to constituents, saying while she believes safe and legal abortions are part of female healthcare, the amendments 'unnecessary' and 'dangerous'.
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood will not be at the vote but stated her opposition (Ben Whitley/PA)
The issue of women investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions has come to the fore in recent times with prominent cases such as those of Nicola Packer and Carla Foster.
Ms Packer was cleared by a jury last month after taking prescribed abortion medicine when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, beyond the legal limit of 10 weeks for taking such medication at home.
She told jurors during her trial, which came after more than four years of police investigation, that she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than 10 weeks.
The case of Ms Foster, jailed in 2023 for illegally obtaining abortion tablets to end her pregnancy when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant, eventually saw her sentence reduced by the Court of Appeal and suspended, with senior judges saying that sending women to prison for abortion-related offences is 'unlikely' to be a 'just outcome'.
MPs had previously been due to debate similar amendments removing the threat of prosecution against women who act in relation to their own pregnancy at any stage, but these did not take place as Parliament was dissolved last summer for the general election.
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has urged MPs to vote against both amendments, saying they would bring about 'the biggest expansion of abortion since 1967″.
Alithea Williams, the organisation's public policy manager, said: 'Unborn babies will have any remaining protection stripped away, and women will be left at the mercy of abusers.
'Both amendments would allow abortion up to birth, for any reason.
A separate amendment, tabled by Conservative MP Caroline Johnson proposes mandatory in-person consultations for women seeking an abortion before being prescribed at-home medication to terminate a pregnancy.
She said her amendment aims to make sure women and girls are safe when they access abortion services.
She told the Commons: 'I'm not trying to limit people's access to what is clinically legally available. I'm trying to make sure that people are safe when they do so.'
She said the change she has proposed would be to protect women who have been trafficked and forced into sex work or those who have been sexually abused and where a perpetrator is attempting to cover up their crimes by causing a termination.
But Ms Antoniazzi said remote access to abortion care was 'safe, effective and reduces waiting times', and that such a change would 'devastate abortion access in this country'.
The changes being debated this week would not cover Scotland, where a group is currently undertaking work to review the law as it stands north of the border.
On issues such as abortion, MPs usually have free votes, meaning they take their own view rather than deciding along party lines.
The Government has previously said it is neutral on decriminalisation and that it is an issue for Parliament to decide upon.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Out
an hour ago
- Time Out
Just in: the first permanent pill testing site will open in Melbourne's inner north this year
After the legalisation of pill testing back in November last year, and a successful summer of trialling a mobile testing service at festivals across the state, the next step in the drug-checking trial has arrived in Melbourne. The state government has revealed the location of Victoria's first-ever fixed site for pill testing will open this year in the centre of Melbourne's inner north. The service will be located at 95 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy – close to one of our city's busiest nightlife hubs. The site will offer testing of most pills, capsules, powders, crystals, and liquids, all in an effort to reduce drug harm. It will be run by a consortium of Youth Support and Advocacy Service, the Loop Australia and Harm Reduction Victoria. It will also offer free, confidential, and non-judgmental harm reduction advice from health professionals, medical support and social services when needed. The pill testing service is set to open by August 2025 and will operate Thursday to Sunday. The legalisation of pill testing doesn't mean that any drugs will be decriminalised outside of being tested at the service, but does mean that people won't be breaking the law by bringing in drugs to be tested. According to information released by the state government, consultations with police will establish an arrangement that doesn't deter people from using the service. Victoria state was the third in the country legalise drug-checking, following the ACT and Queensland, and the first to create dedicated legislation to support pill testing. The motive behind the trial is ultimately to save lives and change behaviour around drug use, with plenty of research backing pill testing as an effective method to achieve this. It'll be an implementation trial that isn't designed to determine whether the service should exist long-term, but rather to test out different models with the aim to determine what works best in Victoria. A mobile pill testing service operated across Victoria's festival season last summer, travelling several music festivals and events, and is confirmed to return to five more festivals next summer. A Victorian ski resort has been named as the best spot in Australia for snowfall this winter
South Wales Argus
3 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
MPs to reintroduce bill in name of girl, 9, who died in pollution-linked death
Dubbed 'Ella's Law,' the proposed legislation is named after Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who lived 82ft from the busy South Circular Road in Lewisham and suffered the fatal asthma attack in February 2013. She became the first person to have air pollution listed as a cause of death following a landmark inquest in 2020. Sian Berry, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion will present the bill to the House of Commons with a speech on Tuesday July 1, with the aim of making clean air a human right under UK law. If passed, the bill would require the Government to achieve clean air throughout England by January 1 2030, setting out a pathway to bring the country in line with World Health Organisation air pollution guidelines. She has so far been backed by cross-party Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP and Independent MPs but hopes that more will support the bill and it will be picked up by the Government in the next King's Speech. Ella's mother Rosamund Adoo Kissi-Debrah has long campaigned for the Government to introduce stricter air pollution limits since her daughter died. In 2022, a similar version of Ella's law was steered through the House of Lords by Green Party peer Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. Sian Berry and Rosumund Adoo Kissi-Deborah on the on the boundary of the South Circular Road in London (Green Party/PA) It was later sponsored by Caroline Lucas MP in the Commons until Parliament was dissolved for the 2024 general election. Ms Berry said: 'Deaths like Ella's, and the millions of lives blighted by preventable diseases caused by air pollution, can be a thing of the past if Governments start taking the right action now. 'Rosamund's campaign is gaining momentum and communities across the country are raising air pollution as a key problem in their local area, so it is great to have representatives from all parties joining together to press for a legal right to breathe clean air. 'Finally passing Ella's Law will save lives, as it will make sure we get new targets, and the funding for local areas to achieve them by cutting down on the many causes of toxic pollution, from road traffic to wood burning.' Ms Adoo Kissi-Debrah said: 'I am delighted Sian and the cross-section of MPs are taking forward Ella's Law in parliament. 'Tackling air pollution should not be a partisan issue, it affects us all, in every constituency in the country. 'I believe that everyone has a right to breathe clean air, no matter where they live, the colour of their skin or their socio-economic background. 'We know that air pollution affects most people in this country, but the harshest effects are felt by poorer and marginalised communities. 'I hope this Labour Government will therefore take forward this Bill to protect all children and adults from the devastating effects of breathing toxic air.' The announcement comes as campaigners, health professionals, local authorities and schools across the country will mark Clean Air Day on Thursday. In the UK, toxic air pollution is estimated to cause between 29,000 and 43,000 premature deaths every year, according to The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution. Sarah Sleet, chief executive at Asthma + Lung UK, said: 'These early deaths represent a failure of government to act as current policies and targets do not do enough to protect public health. 'Toxic air has a detrimental impact on the millions of people living with a lung condition in the UK – with four out of five telling us that it makes their breathing difficulties worse. 'We need action now to protect the public's lungs.' Ella's estate, over which Ms Adoo-Kissi-Debrah acts as administrator, sued the Environment Department (Defra), the Department for Transport and the Department of Health and Social Care for compensation over her 'illness and premature death'. In October last year, three Government departments settled the claim brought by law firm Hodge Jones & Allen for an undisclosed sum, and issued a statement telling Ms Adoo-Kissi-Debrah 'we are truly sorry for your loss' and that no child should have to suffer as Ella did.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
SARAH VINE: If the Left had wanted to provoke a pro-life movement like in the US, then this vote was a great start
Yesterday in the House of Commons Parliament voted by 379 votes to 137 to decriminalise abortion up to and including full term. There are no two ways about it. Our elected representatives, the people charged with safeguarding the interests of every man, woman and child in this country, have just voted for the state-sanctioned killing of foetuses that would be entirely viable if they were allowed to be born. To my mind, it is, quite frankly, morally indefensible. I am by no means anti-abortion. I understand that there are situations where the death of a foetus cannot be avoided, or where a termination is necessary. I have no issue with the morning-after pill being readily available, either. Women have a right to autonomy over their bodies. But like all these things, there are limits – moral and medical. For the most part, babies are not viable outside the womb much before 24 weeks, but after that they can and do survive. The current legislation around abortion reflects that. It's not a perfect cut-off point – there will always be exceptions – but it's probably the least bad option. In any case, very few women opt for abortion at this stage, not least because it involves full labour and delivering a stillborn baby. But now, thanks to Tonia Antoniazzi, Stella Creasy (who wants to go even further, and fully indemnify the partners and medics involved from threat of prosecution) and the powerful abortion lobby, you can theoretically kill a nine-month-old foetus – provided it's still in the womb. This is precisely the sort of insanity that gives feminism a bad name. Because, of course, the whole issue has been re-framed as a question of 'women's rights', which it is most emphatically not. It's a human rights issue: the right of one human to life – versus another's right to take it without fear of repercussion. The irony is that part of the reason this is happening is not because abortion is hard to come by in Britain – but because it's become so much easier. Thanks to measures introduced during Covid, women can now obtain at-home abortion pills over the phone, without the need for a face-to-face consultation, and with no requirement for them to be administered under medical supervision. These pills are only safe and legal up to ten weeks of pregnancy (which is when the vast majority of terminations take place); but the system is open to abuse. Before the need for face-to-face appointments was abolished, there were just three prosecutions of women for illegal abortions in a period of 160 years; since the new system was introduced, there have been six. One of them was the case of Nicola Packer, 45, who last month was cleared of 'unlawfully administering herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the 'intent to procure a miscarriage' at around 26 weeks. Packer's supporters have cast her as a victim, which maybe she is. In court, her defence claimed that she was heavily traumatised by the experience of being arrested and prosecuted. But is that really a reason to declare open season on unborn babies? I could perhaps understand some part of this were there still any degree of stigma surrounding unmarried mothers. But this is not 1925. No one cares any more if a woman has a baby on her own. There's no shame or embarrassment in it, no one is going to force anyone to go to live with evil nuns. And besides, why not just take the baby to term and give it up for adoption? There are plenty of childless couples desperate for a newborn who would be only too grateful. Adoption in this country is complicated and mired in red tape. Why doesn't Parliament vote to resolve that problem instead? But also, on a more personal level, why let it get to that stage? These days you can tell if you're pregnant almost immediately after having sex. If you don't want to be, there are many easy ways of remedying that situation before mitosis (cell division) has even begun. Is that so hard? One thing's for certain. If the Left want to provoke a hardline pro-life movement of the kind that exists in the US, yesterday's vote was an excellent start.
