MPs to vote on decriminalising abortion - how the law could change
A law change aimed at decriminalising abortion will be debated in the House of Commons on Tuesday.Two Labour MPs, Tonia Antoniazzi and Stella Creasy, have tabled rival amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill.Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle could pick one or both amendments to be debated by MPs, but is likely to only pick one to go to a vote. MPs are usually given a free vote on abortion, meaning they do not have to follow any party line on the subject.
What does the current law say?
The current law in England and Wales states that abortion is illegal but allowed up to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy and beyond that in certain circumstances such as if the woman's life is in danger.Abortions have to be approved by two doctors, who check if one of a list of criteria have been met - for example, if the pregnancy poses a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman. Recent law changes have allowed women to access pills to be taken at home to terminate their pregnancies under 10 weeks.In 2022, the most recent data available, 252,122 abortions were reported in England and Wales - the highest number since records began. Abortion providers have reported receiving 100 requests for medical records from police officers in relation to suspected abortion offences in the last five years. Last year, abortion provider MSI told the BBC, it was aware of 60 criminal inquiries in England and Wales since 2018, compared to almost zero before.Six women have appeared in court in England charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancy outside abortion law, in the past three years.Dr Jonathan Lord, medical director at MSI, said the organisation believes the "unprecedented" number of women being investigated could be linked to the police's increased awareness of the availability of the "pills by post scheme".
What would Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment do?
Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment aims to prevent women from being investigated, arrested, prosecuted or imprisoned for terminating their own pregnancies. She has argued that the investigations are "dehumanising and prolonged and the women forced to endure them are often extraordinarily vulnerable".She said those investigated can be victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation or women who have given birth prematurely. "The reality is that no woman wakes up 24 weeks pregnant or more and suddenly decides to end their own pregnancy outside a hospital or clinic. "But some women, in desperate circumstances, make choices that many of us would struggle to understand. What they need is compassion and care, not the threat of criminal prosecution."Her amendment would maintain punishments for medical professionals and violent partners who end a pregnancy outside of the existing law. It has received the backing from 176 MPs and the main abortion providers. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has said the amendment is an "extreme and dangerous proposal" that would "effectively decriminalise abortions".
How is Stella Creasy's amendment different?
Stella Creasy has put forward a rival amendment which would enshrine abortion access as a human right and also aims to prevent women who have terminated their own pregnancies from being investigated.Creasy has said her amendment goes further than her Labour colleague's proposal, by offering "protection to all those involved in ensuring that women can access safe and legal abortions".Creasy has argued that Antoniazzi's amendment would not stop the authorities investigating "the partners of people who had an abortion or the medics who provided the abortions and it would not prevent demands for women to give evidence as part of that process". It is backed by 108 MPs but not abortion providers. Rachael Clarke from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service has said Creasy's amendment is not the right way to achieve "generational change". Speaking to the Radio 4's Today programme last week, Ms Clarke said abortion law is "incredibly complex", adding: "It is essential that any huge changes to abortion law is properly considered." The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has described Creasy's amendment as "even more extreme" than that of Antoniazzi's adding: "There'd no way to bring an abusive partner who causes the death of an unborn baby to justice."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The lucrative reason Prince Harry and Meghan wrecked any chance of a compromise with the Royal Family during 'Megxit', royal author claims
Prince Harry and Meghan allegedly wrecked any chance of a compromise with the Royal Family during 'Megxit' because they wanted the 'freedom to make money and dip their toes into politics', a royal author has claimed. When Harry and Meghan stepped down as working royals in 2020, hopes were high within the Firm that a compromise could be found. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex claimed their decision to 'step back as senior members' was to become more financially independent and to enjoy privacy from the prying eyes of the media. At the time it seemed plausible that these wishes could be fulfilled alongside an agreement to represent the Crown at a select number of events every year. However, according to royal author Valentine Low, any prospect of a soft 'Megxit' was scuppered by the Sussexes over finances. Writing in his tell-all book Courtiers, Low claims that Meghan's desire to 'earn money for herself' led the couple to abandon their duties entirely. Low revealed that during discussions about how to reach a happy middle ground - which could please the whole family - multiple scenarios were explored. These ranged from Harry and Meghan 'having a month a year to do their own thing' to 'spending most of their time privately but doing a select number of royal activities'. There was apparently a 'positive atmosphere' in the room, with each party believing a deal was close. The one caveat for the Sussexes continuing royal duties - however small or minor - was that they must stick to the 'normal rules about royal behaviour'. Crucially, that would mean Harry and Meghan could not 'act or take decisions in order to gain financially'. Low writes: 'Some suspected that in the end she wanted to make money. And the only way she was going to do that was by leaving her royal life behind and going back to America.' On top of this, the couple wanted the 'freedom to dip their toes into American politics', which would represent a major breach of royal protocol for a family with a long history of being staunchly apolitical. 'There was no way for the two sides to reach an agreement on that point. 'Crucially, it was the Queen who took the view that unless they were prepared to abide by the restrictions that applied to working members of the Royal Family, they could not be allowed to carry out official duties.' Indeed, since 'Megxit' the couple have 'dipped their toes' into US politics. During the 2020 US presidential race, the couple endorsed Joe Biden in all but name in a video address urging voters to 'reject hate speech', while Meghan labelled it the 'most important election of our lifetime'. The duke said at the time: 'This election I am not able to vote in the US. But many of you may not know that I haven't been able to vote in the UK my entire life. As we approach this November, it's vital that we reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity.' While Harry and Meghan did not name their favoured candidate, many viewers thought it 'obvious' they were backing Joe Biden over Donald Trump. As such, the Sussexes were accused of 'violating' the terms of their 'Megxit' deal. In September 2020, Trump said that he was 'no fan' of the duchess after the couple released their video. In the aftermath, Republicans and other critics called on the Royal Family to strip the couple of their titles, calling their interference 'inappropriate'. In last year's election, the couple stayed publicly neutral and instead urged Americans to go out and vote. The statement read: 'Voting is not just a right; it's a fundamental way to influence the fate of our communities. 'At The Archewell Foundation, we recognize that civic engagement, no matter one's political party, is at the heart of a more just and equitable world. 'By participating in initiatives like this, we aim to amplify the message that every voice matters.' Free from the shackles of royal protocol, Meghan appears more ambitious than ever. The former Suits actress reportedly hopes to become a billionaire by launching a career in media and as a entrepreneur. In March 2024, she soft-launched American Riviera Orchard before changing the company's name to As Ever. Announcing the venture, Meghan said: 'This new chapter is an extension of what has always been my love language, beautifully weaving together everything I cherish - food, gardening, entertaining, thoughtful living, and finding joy in the everyday.' The food products sold by the brand include an assortment of teas, edible flower sprinkles and a £20 jar of honey. Speaking on an episode of her podcast, Confessions Of A Female Founder, Meghan revealed she has decided to 'just pause' restocking her As Ever brand after previously selling out of products in less than an hour. Meghan has invested in a number of companies including the vegan coffee brand Clevr Blends and haircare line Highbrow Hippie. She has also invested in asset manager Ethic, which focuses on sustainable investments. Harry and Meghan signed a lucrative £18million deal with Spotify in 2020. However despite appearing to be a joint venture, the only show they produced was hosted by Meghan. In the series, titled Archetypes, Meghan interviewed various celebrities from Serena Williams to Paris Hilton. The deal was 'mutually ended' in June 2023 with sources claiming the music streaming giant did not see enough content to warrant the full payout. Earlier this year, the duchess launched her Confessions Of A Female Founder podcast, which saw her chat with female business owners from an array of successful companies. In a slight career change, Meghan also penned a children's book in 2021 titled The Bench. It follows the relationship of a father and son through the eyes of the mother and received mixed reviews from critics. In their television projects, Harry and Meghan have kept a much more united front, but even so, the couple appear to be working separately more often. Although an official figure was never announced, Harry and Meghan's deal with Netflix was allegedly worth around £80million, and the couple produced multiple shows. In 2022, the first Netflix series about the Sussexes was released aptly named Harry and Meghan. While it holds the record for the biggest debut for a Netflix documentary it received mixed reviews. The pair were also executive producers on the Polo sports documentary series which followed athletes at the US Open Polo Championship. In 2023, Meghan did not join Harry as an executive producer on the Heart Of Invictus series, although the duke and duchess did appear together in the show. Meghan's first major solo television project was her lifestyle programme called With Love, Meghan, which saw her team up with a number of famous guests to cook and create homeware products. Harry was almost entirely absent from the series, aside from a very brief cameo in the last episode. A source from the show has since reported that neither Harry nor their children will appear in the next season. Although The Mail On Sunday revealed in May that Harry is planning to launch his own as-yet-undisclosed commercial venture in the next few months, he remains focused on his charity work. Harry is still involved heavily with the Invictus Games and the foundation which supports the tournament as well as the HALO Trust - a charity working to remove landmines which Princess Diana supported. The duke has also launched other projects in recent years, including an eco-travel campaign through his non-profit Travalyst, aimed at encouraging sustainable travel. And in November 2023, he became the global ambassador for Scotty's Little Soldiers - a charity that cares for children whose parents died while serving in the Armed Forces. Earlier this year, Harry had his most high profile fallout with a charity to date when he and Prince Seeiso of Lesotho resigned from their roles as patrons of Sentebale.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Foreign steel to be used for nearly a fifth of British railway upgrades
Foreign steel will account for almost a fifth of Britain's future railway upgrades following a 'landmark' government contract. Ministers said on Tuesday that British Steel had been handed a £500 million contract to make new rails for Network Rail. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said: 'This landmark contract truly transforms the outlook for British Steel and its dedicated workforce in Scunthorpe, building on its decades-long partnership with Network Rail to produce rail for Britain's railways.' Under the new deal just over 80 per cent of Network Rail's supply will now come from the UK. From July, the remaining steel for rails will be sold to Britain by two Austrian and German companies, Voestalpine and Saarstahl. Network Rail said that in 2019 '95 per cent' of its rails were made in Britain. By April this year that figure had fallen to around 80 per cent. Under the Labour Government's newly unveiled plans, British Steel will only supply 377,000 of the 450,000 tonnes of rails being bought over the next five years. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said: 'This is great news for British Steel and a vote of confidence in the UK's expertise in steelmaking, which will support thousands of skilled jobs for years to come.' Network Rail commercial director Clive Berrington added: 'We are committed to buying British where it makes economic sense to do so and British Steel remain extremely competitive in the provision of rail and will remain our main supplier in the years ahead.' The Labour Government nationalised the Scunthorpe steelworks in April at a cost to the taxpayer of £100 million, taking control after Chinese former owner Jingye threatened to shut down the site's blast furnaces. Around 2,700 jobs were at risk of redundancy until the Government stepped in with emergency legislation that was voted through Parliament on a Saturday. Jingye said in March that British Steel was losing £700,000 a day, with Zengwei An, its then-chief executive, saying at the time that the shutdown 'is a necessary decision given the hugely challenging circumstances the business faces.' In a statement, the company added that the Scunthorpe site was 'no longer financially sustainable due to highly challenging market conditions, the imposition of tariffs, and higher environmental costs relating to the production of high-carbon steel.' Scunthorpe is the only place in Britain capable of making so-called 'virgin steel', high purity metal refined from raw materials. Under net zero plans embraced by both Labour and the Conservatives, politicians had been urging steelmakers to concentrate on 'green steel', which is made by melting recycled steel items in electric-arc furnaces. Such green steel contains impurities that make it weaker than proper virgin steel. In the 2000s Scunthorpe was given substantial upgrades to allow it to produce rails in 216-metre lengths, Modern Railways magazine reported. Nowhere else in the country is capable of doing so, meaning the site is vital for Network Rail's future.
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
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. 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.'
