MPs to debate and vote on decriminalising abortion
The issue looks likely to be debated and voted on on Tuesday, as part of amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill.
The latest attempt 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.
Tonia Antoniazzi has tabled an amendment to decriminalise abortion (Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA)
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'.
Ahead of debate in the Commons, Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi said her amendment would result in 'removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy.
Ms Antoniazzi said the cases of women investigated by police had motivated her to advocate for a change in the law.
She said: 'Police have investigated more than 100 women for suspected illegal abortion in the last five years including women who've suffered natural miscarriages and stillbirths.
'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.'
She said her amendment will not change time limits for abortion or the regulation of services but it 'decriminalises women accused of ending their own pregnancies', taking them out of the criminal justice system 'so they can get the help and support they need'.
Her amendment is supported by abortion providers including MSI Reproductive Choices and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) as well as the the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG).
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.
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.
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.
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 Carla 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'.
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.
During a Westminster Hall debate earlier this month, justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said the Government is neutral on decriminalisation and that it is an issue for Parliament to decide upon.
She said: 'If the will of Parliament is that the law in England and Wales should change, then the Government would not stand in the way of such change but would seek to ensure that the law is workable and enforced in the way that Parliament intended.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
37 minutes ago
- Spectator
With Nadine Dorries
Nadine Dorries is one of the most recognisable Conservative politicians from the past two decades. Elected as the MP for Mid Bedfordshire in 2005, she notably clashed with David Cameron and George Osborne (who she called 'two arrogant posh boys') and lost the whip in 2012 when she took part in the reality show I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here. Loyal to Boris Johnson, she served in his government and rose to be Culture Secretary. She stood down in 2023 and went on to write about politics in the bestselling books The Plot and Downfall. On the podcast, Nadine tells the Spectator's executive editor Lara Prendergast about her memories of tinned burgers and Sunday lunches as a child, working long shifts as a nurse in Warrington and what it was like spending a year in Zambia. She also explains the 'relentless' but 'collegiate' atmosphere of Parliament and how she once saw a mouse at the Commons' salad bar. Nadine explains what it is like to have recently used the weight-loss jab Mounjaro and why, in her family, she is still the 'queen of the Sunday roast'. Produced by Patrick Gibbons.
Scotsman
37 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Starmer's incoherent policies are a sign of his desperation to survive
PA While Starmer drives the Labour tank forwards – and then abruptly into reverse – the hopes of his disciples are crushed on the Westminster lawn Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The first anniversary of Sir Keir Starmer's election victory is fast approaching and we can expect a major public relations initiative to celebrate the occasion. The offering is likely to be thin gruel. Were the election to be held again now I would expect there would be far fewer people voting for Starmer and his party than a year ago. Never mind the rise of Reform UK, I think it's reasonable to say that knowing what they know now, many people would have kept Sunak and Hunt rather than have Starmer and Reeves (and I'm a fan of neither). Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The last year has not been pretty. It did not take long before Starmer started breaking his promises on benefits and taxes. Then, after his minsters and backbenchers prostrated themselves to defend him, Starmer has now reached a Ted Heath level of U-turns to win popularity. The climbdown on Winter fuel payments will not stop the episode being remembered, and Nigel Farage will take the credit for forcing him to change his mind. Now Starmer is finally agreeing to a national inquiry on rape gangs., having previously said it was not necessary. What will his U-turn be next week? Where will Reeves find the money for these uncosted changes to what were previously claimed to be vital to plugging a £22bn black hole in the public finances? Starmer's moral compass now always points to self-preservation. The result is incoherence born out of short-termism. Policies are contradictory and unnecessarily costly as a result. While Starmer drives the Labour tank forwards – and then abruptly into reverse – the hopes of his disciples are crushed on the Westminster lawn. Along with those promises to his followers, everyone else's ambitions are made dust under the tracks of his T34. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The EU Reset hasn't resolved the Irish Sea border. He claims to be adopting dynamic alignment (foregoing our own decision making by adopting EU laws) but nothing has yet been published and more talks are required. We have conceded £1bn of fish stocks annually (until 2038) as the price of simply being able to speak to the EU. It is utter ineptitude. Meanwhile Starmer's hypocrisy is best illustrated by him continuing with Wes Streeting's Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which will not apply in Northern Ireland because, as several Lords pointed out in the Bill's Second Reading, it is the EU's Tobacco Products Directive that applies in Northern Ireland (as it does in the Republic of Ireland). Interestingly, the view of the Irish Government is the UK Bill's generational ban on tobacco sales is incompatible with EU law, so that provision cannot apply in the province. Why then continue with the Bill rather than drop it and apply dynamic alignment with the EU tobacco directive that the UK voted for when still an EU member? The case for pausing is even stronger in Northern Ireland given the UK land border with the Republic provides a ready-made smuggling route for organised crime and paramilitary groups to exploit. With Ireland looking to introduce a ban on people under 21 smoking tobacco the potential for additional problems around contraband is huge. Last month Starmer paused the application of legislation introducing a 9.00pm watershed and online advertising ban for foods with high fat, sugar and salt content, so why not pause the tobacco Bill? Is it simply because Starmer has no votes he can lose in Northern Ireland? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Then there is the problem of non-tariff barriers such as the EU Deforestation Regulation which gives clear preference to EU farmers (European forests were cleared during mediaeval times to build navies and in the industrial revolution to supply fuel). Having been identified by the US Trade Agency as an unfair trade practice that could prevent of US exports to a value of $8.6 billion p/a the EUDR represents a significant threat to international trade. By capping total oil palm plantations at 6.5 million hectares Malaysia has decreased their total area by 4.2 per cent over the past four years. This stands in stark contrast to other vegetable oil producers like Brazil, which has increased its soybean area by 6 million hectares – equivalent to Malaysia's entire oil palm area accumulated after a century of cultivation. Similarly, Malaysia's ambitious reforestation target of planting 100 million trees has been met ahead of its 2025 deadline. This is larger than China's programme of 70m trees and Brazil's 73m trees. In the UK we recognised the great distance Malaysia has travelled in tackling deforestation by cutting its palm oil tariffs. Yet when the EU recently announced its rankings to determine the non-tariff regulatory burdens countries will face, Brazil and Malaysia were placed equal, even though Brazil lost a huge 2.8 million/ha of primary forest last year (its 2nd highest in 20 years) while Malaysia lost only 68.9 thousand/ha (its lowest in 20 years). Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad By moving towards dynamic alignment and adopting EU regulations the UK puts itself in the position of ignoring Brazil's deforestation but punishing Malaysia's reforms, pushing British food costs up in the process. It possibly also conflicts with the UK's membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Add to this law-making incoherence the fact the trade deal with the US has also not yet been delivered (again, even though weeks have passed no legal texts are available) and it's difficult to avoid concluding Starmer's administration lives from day-to-day, swinging from one crisis to another. Meanwhile, the public finances are approaching a tipping point towards a major crisis – with public spending increasing while revenues are falling short of estimates – meaning borrowing and taxes will need to rise to unsustainable levels. There will, however, be no U-turn on that approach. Call it incompetence or desperation, Keir Starmer's first year is not one to celebrate.
New Statesman
39 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Rachel Reeves' fiscal headache is getting bigger
Photo by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street The more one looks at last week's Spending Review, the more one appreciates the challenges the economy and the government face. Health and defence were the two clear beneficiaries from the review, but even here the numbers do not mean that all of the spending pressures have been addressed. The NHS is going to see real-term increases in its resource budget of 3 per cent, which is much higher than any other department and much higher than economic growth as a whole. It is also lower than the average rate of growth in its budget since its creation of 3.6 per cent and much lower than the last time waiting times were brought down substantially when its budget increased by 5 or 6 per cent a year. If Labour fails to achieve similar progress on waiting times over the course of the parliament, it is in electoral trouble. As for defence, it got the lion's share of additional capital spending. This makes sense given that our stocks have been depleted by supporting the Ukrainians and that technology is only going to play a bigger role as warfare evolves. But last week's announcement increases overall defence expenditure to 2.5 per cent of GDP, when the government has ambitions to reach 3 per cent, NATO is calling for 3.5 per cent and President Trump is demanding 5 per cent. So yes, health and defence are the big winners relative to everyone else but there is every chance that, by the time we get to the next election, there will be strong demands for these areas to get more. It is worth reflecting on what the government had to do to enable it to make the announcements on health and defence that it has. The fiscal rules have been loosened to allow more borrowing, which caused a certain amount of bond market unease at the time of the last Budget and has contributed to us having higher bond yields than most other European economies. Taxes have gone up very substantially, mostly from an increase in employers' National Insurance Contributions. This is making life difficult for many businesses and will, in time, result in lower pay for employees. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe As for other parts of government, it would be wrong to describe them having austerity imposed upon them, but nor are they living in the land of milk and honey. Departmental settlements for the end of the Spending Review period are tight and leave no scope for additional demands. Nor is the government generally left with a buffer if matters do not turn out as well as expected. Rachel Reeves gave herself very little fiscal headroom in her autumn Budget or Spring Statement. The Office for Budget Responsibility is a relative optimist when it comes to the growth prospects for the country but if it revises down its productivity assumptions or concludes that President Trump's tariffs or Middle East instability will cause a negative impact on our medium-term growth prospects, Reeves will be on course to breach her 'non-negotiable' fiscal rules. Reeves argues that nothing in the Spending Review requires her to raise taxes. That is true in that she has stuck to the spending envelope that she set out in October. But what were not included in the spending review are higher debt interest bills or the retreat on winter fuel payment cuts, let alone the abolition of the two-child benefit limit There must be a better than even chance that some combination of tax increases or spending cuts will be necessary by the autumn if the fiscal rules are to be met. Given that a Spending Review has only just been completed, tax increases are the most likely response. Last year's tax increases landed badly, this year's – if substantial – will be received even less generously. This gives a sense of the predicament facing the government. Any fair assessment has to acknowledge a very difficult inheritance and some bad luck along the way. When Reeves cleared the way for higher capital investment in her October Budget, she was presumably hoping that she would not need to devote much of it to defence but to improving our economic infrastructure as part of a growth strategy. She would also have hoped that the international trading system would not have been damaged quite so bigly by the new US President. A full-scale war between Israel and Iran disrupting oil supplies would also not have been on her wish list. The government, of course, cannot be seen as a passive figure here. It is pursuing some economically sensible policies – planning reform, rebuilding our relationship with the EU, encouraging technological innovation – and should seek to be bolder on all fronts. It also needs to be careful not to make growth harder in other areas (expanding employment rights, most obviously). If taxes have to go up, it makes sense to prepare the ground but this risks weakening consumer confidence. There is then the question of which taxes to increase where there is usually a direct trade-off between what is the least politically unpopular (wealth taxes, anyone?) and the least economically damaging. The government needs to put the economy first. All of this points to a very difficult autumn Budget in which Reeves will likely have to resist calls from within the Labour Party to spend more on welfare, reassure the bond markets by sticking to her fiscal rules and, therefore, find ways to raise revenue without making the country less competitive. For all the talk of having stabilised the economy, there are still some very tough choices ahead. Related
