Justice Secretary tells of opposition to ‘dangerous' abortion decriminalisation
The Justice Secretary has described measures proposing to decriminalise abortion as 'extreme' as she outlined her opposition ahead of a vote by MPs.
Amendments likely to be debated on Tuesday are aimed at ensuring women cannot be prosecuted for terminating their own pregnancy at any stage.
But Shabana Mahmood, who said she believes safe and legal abortions are part of female healthcare, branded the amendments 'unnecessary' and 'dangerous'.
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 possible to take prescribed medication at home if a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant.
Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment, which has wide support from MPs, would result in 'removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy.
She said she had been moved to advocate for a change in the law having seen women investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions.
The issue 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'.
Ms Antoniazzi said police had investigated more than 100 women for suspected illegal abortion in the past five years 'including women who've suffered natural miscarriages and stillbirths'.
She added: 'This is just wrong. It's a waste of taxpayers' money, it's a waste of the judiciary's time, and it's not in the public interest.'
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 Mahmood, who will not be present for Tuesday's vote due to being away on Government business, wrote to constituents making clear her opposition to both amendments.
She said: 'It is hard to see these measures as anything other than extreme.
'I can unequivocally state that I would have voted against both amendments were I able to be there, and I will vote against them if given the opportunity in the future.
'I oppose extending abortions up until the point of birth beyond the exemptions that currently exist, as doing so would not only be unnecessary but dangerous.
'I am deeply concerned to see these measures being progressed in the name of women's rights, when the potential physical and mental impacts on women would be so devastating.'
She added she is 'troubled' by the amendments being considered as part of the wider Crime and Policing Bill 'meaning there will be less time for debate'.
She described the proposed changes as something which would 'signal a generational shift in our approach and response to abortion and therefore warrants serious discussion'.
The latest attempt to change the law follows 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.
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.
Earlier this month, a debate at Westminster Hall heard calls from pro-change campaigners that women must no longer be 'dragged from hospital bed to police cell' over abortion.
But opponents of decriminalisation warned against such a 'radical step'.
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) 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.
'NC20 (Ms Creasy's amendment) is only more horrifying because it removes any way of bringing men who end the life of a baby by attacking a pregnant woman to justice.'
Ms Creasy rejected Spuc's claim, and urged MPs not to be 'misled'.
She highlighted coercive control legislation, which would remain in place if her amendment was voted through, and which she said explicitly identifies forcing someone to have an abortion as a crime punishable by five years in jail.
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.
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
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Countries refusing to take back illegal migrants could be stripped of visas
Countries refusing to take back migrants who arrive illegally in the UK could be stripped of visas under new plans being scrutinised by Sir Keir Starmer. The Prime Minister said he was looking at taking a more 'transactional' approach to returns agreements and how to treat nations that refuse to sign one with the UK. Sir Keir brought up the idea with fellow world leaders at the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Canada, as he pressed European counterparts to do more to tackle the small boats crisis. The number of people arriving in the UK on small boats across the Channel so far this year is around 40 per cent higher than it was last year. The crossings have piled pressure on the Government to go further to tackle the problem, with concern seen to be contributing to the surging popularity of Nigel Farage's Reform UK. The UK has returns agreements with countries including Albania, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Georgia, Somalia, Serbia, and Algeria. Each is different – but broadly, they include a commitment to take back citizens who have no right to stay in the UK, such as failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals. Speaking to reporters at the summit, Sir Keir said he had raised the idea of linking returns agreements to visas in a round table discussion on Monday. He said he had 'made clear that we are looking at issues like a smarter use of our visas', saying that included 'looking at whether we should tie our visas to the work that the countries we're dealing with are doing on preventative measures and on returns agreements '. The Prime Minister said: 'We are looking at what we can do on returns agreements. We have done a number of bilateral returns agreements. 'So the question is, again, whether it is possible to go a bit beyond that, including looking at this question of visas now and whether we can't be a bit smarter with the use of our visas in relation to countries that don't have a returns agreement with us'. Asked whether that meant countries that refused to sign returns agreements being stripped of visas, he said: 'Yeah – it would be much more sort of transactional, if you like. 'Now we're looking into it, but certainly I think there are areas like that that we should look more closely at.' Sir Keir also had discussions with the leaders of France, Italy and Germany about where they could cooperate more deeply to tackle the small boats crisis. His talks with Emmanuel Macron, the French president, included discussing 'innovative ways' to tackle the flow of boats, according to a Downing Street spokesman. There is a UK-France summit next month, at which it seems likely that a new package of measures could be announced to counter the crisis. The Downing Street readout of the Starmer-Macron bilateral meeting made mention of the 'deteriorating situation in the Channel', an apparent reference to the high number of crossings this year. Asked whether that amounted to an admission of failure on small boats in his first months in office, Sir Keir said: 'Look, there's a serious situation in relation to the Channel crossings and, as I've said on a number of occasions, nobody should be making that crossing. It is a serious challenge that requires serious responses to it.' Sir Keir said his conversations with Giorgia Meloni, the Italian prime minister, focused on what could be done 'upstream' – an area in which Ms Meloni has had 'some success in reducing her own numbers', the Prime Minister added. He also talked to Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, attending his first G7 summit, about the problem of how some of the boats used for crossings often are moved through Germany.
Daily Mail
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Principal of Queen's College accuses Rachel Reeves of damaging female equality after her school fees VAT hike forces all-girl schools to admit boys
The Principal of Queen's College in London has accused Chancellor Rachel Reeves of damaging female equality and opportunities after her private school fees VAT hike. Richard Tillett's letter to the Times told how one private school within an hour of the Chancellor's own constituency has been forced to accept boys to a previously girls only school from September 2026. According to the principal, Wakefield Girls' High School is soon to start welcoming boys almost 150 years after it was founded in 1878. Mr Tillett added that another local school, Harrogate College, had taken the same decision, while a third, Queen Margaret's School in York, is closing its doors altogether. Writing in the Times, he said: 'All-girls' education matters, and the state does not do enough to provide it. 'Girls' schools regularly dominate the top of the national league tables, and all the evidence shows that, if girls are educated separately from boys, they achieve more highly, do more science, participate in more sport and have greater levels of self-confidence. 'Also last Friday the High Court judged that the imposition of VAT on school fees was legal. 'Whether it is moral is a different story. When will the Chancellor, who went to an all-girls' school, realise the damage that her policy is doing to the female equality agenda?' Mr Tillett, who himself attended a private school before going on to study at the University of Cambridge, had his comments on the Times' letter page. Queen Margaret's in York told parents last week it would be closing after 125 years of providing education for girls aged 11 to 18. Labour's introduction of VAT on school fees, as well as "increased national insurance and pension contributions, the removal of charitable-status business rates relief, and rising costs for the upkeep and operation of our estate", were all behind the closure, a statement from the school said. Chair of the Board of governors Terry Burt said there were simply not enough children enrolled in September to continue operating past the end of term, and the school will close on July 5. A notice to appoint an administrator has been filed with Companies House. The Labour government moved quickly after winning last year's election to introduce VAT on private schools fees, which had previously been exempt from the tax - essentially hiking fees by 20 percent. They were warned this could price middle class families out of the market, but a High Court ruling this week ruled in Starmer's favour. The judicial review claim, heard earlier this year, aimed to have the 20 per cent tax declared 'incompatible' with human rights law. However, in a decision handed down on Friday, judges rejected all claims, despite agreeing with some of the arguments. The controversial tax, pledged in Labour's manifesto, came into force in January this year. Three groups of families – most of whom are anonymous – joined private schools in bringing a legal challenge against the policy. Their lawyers argued the tax is a breach of children's right to an education under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The various families also said it was 'discriminatory' – either because their child has special educational needs (SEN), has a preference for a religious education, or because they need an all-girls environment. But Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain concluded the VAT policy was 'proportionate' in its aim to raise extra revenue for state schools. They added Parliament ultimately had the right make the decision. A government spokesperson said: 'Ending tax breaks for private schools will raise £1.8bn a year, helping to support public services including the 94% of pupils who attend state schools.'
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Starmer says he picked up papers dropped by Trump so others wouldn't get tackled by security
Keir Starmer said he rushed to pick up papers dropped by Donald Trump at the G7 summit in Canada mainly to avoid anyone else stepping forward to do so and being tackled by the US president's security team. Speaking to reporters in Kananaskis a day after Trump fumbled some of the documents about a UK-US trade deal, with a sheaf of papers tumbling to the ground, Starmer said he had little choice but to bend down and help out. The UK prime minister said: 'I mean, look, there weren't many choices with the documents and picking it up, because … as you probably know there were quite strict rules about who can get close to the president. 'I mean, seriously, I think if any of you [the media] had stepped forward other than me, I was just deeply conscious that in a situation like it would not have been good for anybody else to have stepped forward – not that any of you rushed to. 'There's a very tightly guarded security zone around the president, as you would expect.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion As well as dropping the papers, Trump wrongly announced that he had agreed a deal with the European Union, not the UK, and some of his answers were unclear and rambling. Asked if he had any concerns about Trump's health, Starmer said: 'No, he was in good form yesterday, and I mean we had – I don't know how many sessions yesterday together as the G7 and then into the evening session as well.' As Starmer and Trump spoke to the media on Monday before their private talks, the US president was again effusive in his praise for the prime minister. Asked why Trump liked him so much, Starmer replied: 'I mean, that's really for him to answer, but I think it's that we do have a good relationship. I think that is in the national interest. 'Frankly, there has long been a close relationship between the US and the UK, as I've said many times, on defence and security and intelligence sharing in particular. I'm very pleased that I've got a good relationship with him, notwithstanding, as both he and I acknowledge, that our political backgrounds are different.'
