Call for abortion to be decriminalised in Scotland
It comes as Westminster is set to consider decriminalising abortion in England Wales this summer, according to reports.
Politico has reported that two backbench Labour MPs – Tonia Antoniazzi and Stella Creasy – are drawing up separate proposals to change the law which would be brought before MPs in the coming months.
Abortion currently remains technically illegal under the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 in England, Scotland and Wales.
READ MORE: Hotel on Scotland's NC500 with 'stunning views' put up for sale
The Abortion Act of 1967 ensured people could get a termination but only under certain circumstances.
The process requires the approval of two doctors and any termination beyond 24 weeks of a pregnancy is considered to be illegal and women can be prosecuted.
Campaigners believe the legislation is out-of-date and needs to be changed to remove any form of criminality from those seeking a termination.
This includes Scottish Greens MSP Gillian Mackay (below), who recently introduced legislation that introduced buffer zones outside abortion clinics, and has called on the Scottish Government to act on this issue too.
(Image: PA)
Under Section 53 of the Scotland Act 2016, abortion law was devolved to Scotland, but hasn't changed since.
'We [The Scottish Greens] support the decriminalisation of abortion. It is long overdue, and it is regrettable that it has taken so long to get to this point,' she told The National.
'It was raised with me a lot when I was introducing my Safe Access Zones Act to curb anti-choice protests and it is something we need to see action on in Scotland alongside reform to remove the 'two doctor rule.''
She added: 'I hope that these proposals by Labour in Westminster will lead to a similar discussion and progress here in Scotland. Abortion care is healthcare. Nobody should be criminalised for trying to receive vital medical attention.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
30 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Council forced to U-turn on nursery mothballing plans
Despite previously insisting that the closures would go ahead, council officials have now indicated that they will abandon the plans and seek a review of the authority's approach to mothballing. In response to multiple requests to explain why unelected officers were able to make decisions on mothballing without consultation, a council spokesperson had previously suggested that government guidance – which includes clear instructions to consult with communities on any such decision – does not apply to nurseries, meaning that they did not need to discuss the matter with families before implementing the changes. In recent days, however, the council has come under increasing pressure over its plans. The matter has been raised in the Scottish Parliament, and government officials recently wrote to the council to warn that the proposals were not in line with statutory requirements. In a letter to Laurence Findlay, the Director for Education and Children's Services at Aberdeenshire Council, a government official explicitly stated that mothballing guidance applies to council-run nurseries, and highlighted a section of the document stating that any mothballing decision 'should be taken in consultation with the parents involved.' The government's letter also raised concerns about the mothballing of another nursery in 2024 which has since been removed from the options that parents can choose from when applying for a space for their child. Scottish Conservatives MSP Alexander Burnett has also written to the administration, which is led by councillors from his own party. His email, which has been seen by The Herald, sharply criticised several aspects of the council's approach and urged them to abandon the mothballing proposals. In addition to this, The Herald has been shown email correspondence in which the council is explicitly advised by a solicitor acting for parents that they considered the plans "unlawful". Officials are asked to state whether they agree with this, in which case they would have had to advise councillors of this, or disagree, in which case there would be no reason for families to delay further legal action. Opposition councillors had successfully demanded a special meeting of the council take place to consider the matter, with the session planned for Monday 9 June. When The Herald approached the council about this matter earlier today an official declined to comment, stating that they did not wish to 'pre-empt' any decisions that might be made by elected representatives. However, by mid-afternoon this position had changed, and the council's press team issued a release stating that the administration now intends to abandon the controversial mothballing plans: 'The Administration is minded to seek a review of our mothballing guidance to incorporate a consultation process with parents. 'We acknowledge the strong feelings concerning the four settings and appreciate the concerns of parents who highly value their local early learning facilities. We are trying to balance the needs of children and families, with a challenging financial position – but it is critical we do this in the right way. 'We will be recommending that we pause planning for all future mothballing activity currently underway, whilst we examine the guidance. Whilst we have been engaging with parents, we need to consult at a much earlier stage to inform the decision-making process, and we will explore how to integrate this into the procedure. 'We will also recommend reversing the budget decision identifying this as a saving in our 2025/26 budget process and seek to identify the saving from elsewhere. 'We are taking the unusual step of announcing our intention prior to the meeting in the hope that we remove further anxiety for the people who have made requests to speak.' The original proposals had been strongly opposed by SNP and some independent councillors who have welcomed the U-turn. Commenting, SNP Education and Children's Spokesperson, Cllr Louise McAllister, said: 'The decision to mothball these nurseries, without consultation or democratic oversight, was wrong from the get go, and that is a point we have strived to make since the announcements in April. 'As well as the U-turn on mothballing, I sincerely hope that the administration also accept that these decisions need to be fully returned to the hands of elected members, so that we can truly be a voice for the communities we represent. 'Whilst I am delighted for the children who can now continue to access their childcare provision in these settings, I think the administration must acknowledge and apologise for the hurt and distress caused by this short sighted decision making.' SNP Deputy Education and Children's Spokesperson, Cllr Jenny Nicol, added: 'From the outset we have voted against mothballing decisions being made by officers, and consistently challenged a process that lacked proper consultation and failed to consider the long term impact on rural families. 'For too long, decisions were being made behind closed doors, without the input of those most affected and facing the traumatic realities of mothballing. This reversal shows what can be achieved when communities stand up and are supported by Councillors who put people before 'process'.' 'We welcome this shift, but it must now be followed by a full review of the guidance and a genuine commitment to rural early years provision going forward.' SNP Cllr Dawn Black, who represents Stonehaven and Lower Deeside, praised local communities who 'have stepped up and fought this campaign so passionately and so successfully.' 'As Councillors our hands have been tied to a certain extent and we have done all we can to push this issue forward – and finally we see some change. We could not have done that without the dedication of local voices who took the time to email and speak with individual Councillors and at the education committee. 'Regardless of guidance from elsewhere, as a council we should want to consult with communities – to work with them to find sustainable ways forward – that should have already been in our guidance. Instead the Tory-led administration have tried to force change on communities, whilst hiding behind officers, and have realised that people just will not stand for it.'
South Wales Guardian
34 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Liberty loses bid to bring legal action against equalities body
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Ms Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Ms Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Mr Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024.
The National
39 minutes ago
- The National
Human rights group loses bid to bring legal action against EHRC
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. READ MORE: This is what the Hamilton by-election tells us about SNP chances for 2026 Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, he said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' READ MORE: Labour considering 'Brit Card' ID plans, minister confirms Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024.
