Abortion overreach will backfire on women
Last week MPs voted to support an amendment, proposed by the Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, which argues that women who obtain an abortion should never be prosecuted, even if it's after the legal 24-week limit. This sounds good in theory (abortion should not be criminalised, yes, agreed) but is in fact completely nuts. The law already allows late-term abortions in extreme circumstances, but now a woman could have an abortion the day before her due date for any reason she fancied. Now, very few women will do this, and in fact very few ever have, and the harrowing stories that have been used to justify this vote largely took place during the Covid lockdown, when women were buying abortion pills in the post and couldn't see doctors to find out how far along they were in their pregnancy. So: not a widespread problem, and one that could be resolved by re-examining how the Crown Prosecution Service deals with these sad cases.
• `Read more: MPs vote to decriminalise abortion
Instead, MPs have decided to chuck out the UK's heretofore liberal but pragmatic approach in favour of something far more radical that most people don't want: 87 per cent of the British public are in favour of legalised abortion, but more than half draw the line at the abortion of a healthy baby over the six-month limit. Antoniazzi's amendment upends the delicate compromise that existed until now.
Sensing their moment has come, politicians on the right are already arguing that the time limit here should be cut, in line with most of Europe. Meanwhile, some on the left are arguing the amendment doesn't go far enough. Stella Creasy proposed a further amendment, which was written by the part-time tax barrister, occasional fox murderer and full-time tweeter Jolyon Maugham, that would have made it impossible even to prosecute those who coerced women into late-term abortions. This was considered so extreme it was rejected by every abortion provider in the country, and also, wisely, by MPs. Undaunted, Creasy, who seems to believe she represents Washington DC rather than Walthamstow, implied that rejecting her amendment was on a par with the overturning of Roe v Wade. By way of evidence, she reeled off voguish American clichés ('the Donald Trump playbook', 'women's bodies as battlefields') which always suggest the speaker is so high on progressive platitudes they have turned off their brain.
If Creasy and her ilk want to take lessons from America, they should look at what happened last week to what is euphemistically called 'paediatric gender healthcare'. On Wednesday the Supreme Court allowed red states like Tennessee to ban doctors from giving hormone treatments and body-altering surgery to gender-confused children. It is the latest blow for the gender movement in the US, and it was entirely caused by overreach by activists. Until about a decade ago, people who wanted to live as the opposite sex were seen as a niche adult demographic who should be treated with kindness. But activist groups destroyed that moderate status quo with their ludicrous arguments, such as that male rapists could be sent to women's prisons and there should be no age limit on body-altering surgery for children. The Biden administration blindly supported them until belatedly realising it was following the wilfully blind, and American politicians are now, at last, trying to undo some of the damage. None of this worked out well for trans people or the left.
Progressive overreach and reality denial will always cause a backlash, something Maugham should know, given his own flailing gender activism. Creasy, too, has argued that 'some women are born with penises', suggesting a strong disconnect between her beliefs and actual biology. I'm not sure when Labour politicians decided to follow their Democrat counterparts in defending the most extreme version of a social shift, but they need to get a grip. One reason US feminists lost the abortion argument is they insisted abortion was no big deal and derided Hillary Clinton for describing it as something that should be 'safe, legal and rare', saying that last word was 'stigmatising'. It turned out that it's a lot more stigmatising to pretend getting an abortion is just a jolly lark that should come with a loyalty card.
When I was 23 and 11 weeks pregnant, I had an abortion, an experience neither jolly nor terrible but necessary. Afterwards, I felt pure gratitude, which is how I still feel about it now. Since then I've sampled many experiences on the fertility menu: given birth to twins, miscarried, had a baby. You don't need to be a wet-eyed sentimentalist to know a baby becomes a baby well before it's born; I could feel when it happened to all of my babies at about the six-month mark.
The legal limit exists for good reasons, including the mother's mental health, and maintaining public support for abortion. Arguing that a woman has the right to terminate a fully gestated healthy baby is the most self-defeating version of the pro-choice movement, because it will reinvigorate the anti-abortion argument in this country, just as arguing for the most extreme version of trans rights destroyed the moderate accommodations that existed before. Labour has kicked a hornets' nest with this vote. And it's women who are going to be stung.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Notting Hill face-recognition technology will be used without bias
Metropolitan Police boss Sir Mark Rowley has said live facial recognition (LFR) technology will be used without bias amid concerns about it being deployed at this year's Notting Hill Carnival. In a letter to the commissioner, 11 groups had said the technology is a 'mass surveillance tool that treats all carnival-goers as potential suspects' and has 'no place at one of London's biggest cultural celebrations'. It also said that LFR technology was 'less accurate for women and people of colour' in certain settings. Responding to the concerns, Sir Mark said the technology will help locate any dangerous individuals attending Notting Hill carnival over the August bank holiday weekend. He wrote that when the technology was used at the carnival in 2016 and 2017, it 'did not build public confidence', but has since 'significantly improved' and now performs to a 'much higher standard'. Sir Mark acknowledged concerns about bias in facial recognition technology, adding that the force has selected the algorithm it uses 'with care' and knows how to use it in a non-discriminatory way. It comes after the letter, signed by groups including Liberty and Big Brother Watch, said there is 'no clear legal basis' for Scotland Yard's use of LFR. The letter added: 'Notting Hill Carnival is an event that specifically celebrates the British African Caribbean community, yet the MPS (Metropolitan Police Service) is choosing to use a technology with a well-documented history of inaccurate outcomes and racial bias.' Rebecca Vincent, interim director at Big Brother Watch, said she is 'deeply disappointed' that the Met 'has chosen to dig its heels in' after the call to scrap the 'Orwellian' technology. She added: 'We all want criminals off the streets, but turning (the) carnival into a mass police line-up is not the way to do it.' About 7,000 officers and staff will be deployed each day over the weekend. LFR cameras will be used by police at the carnival to search for people who are marked as being wanted on the police national computer. Meanwhile, a UK retail facial recognition system has reported its highest-ever monthly total of suspect alerts, its operators say. In July 2025, Facewatch sent 43,602 alerts to subscriber retail stores – the equivalent of more than 10,000 suspects flagged every week for the first time and a 134.8% increase compared to July 2024 (18,564). Over the 12 months to July 31, Facewatch said it recorded 407,771 alerts in total, with current live data already showing the rising trend continuing into August. Nick Fisher, chief executive of Facewatch, said: 'July's record numbers are a further stark warning that retailers and their employees are facing unprecedented levels of criminal activity, including violent and aggressive behaviour.' A spokeswoman for Big Brother Watch said: 'This technology turns shoppers into walking barcodes and makes us a nation of suspects, with devastating consequences for people's lives when it inevitably makes mistakes.'
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Enjoy the magic of university life
Simon Jenkins seems to have forgotten the purpose of higher education (As thousands more teenagers scramble for university places, I have to ask – why?, 14 August). It is not, primarily, for vocational study, nor is it something to rush through in two years. It is to provide a lifetime love of learning and to encourage different ways of thinking. The solution is not to 'cut back', as Jenkins suggests, but, if anything, to ensure that as many students as possible experience the magic of university Professor Gad HeumanUniversity of Warwick Zheng Zeguang should be applauded for reminding us how Britain and China joined forces to defeat fascism in the second world war (15 August). Let us hope that Britain will continue to work with the Chinese people to oppose genocidal, expansionist, totalitarian regimes wherever they might have taken root in the world since HughesProfessor emeritus of international relations, LSE In St Andrews, the problem of gulls (Report, 19 August) has become so bad that one food outlet, The Cheesy Toast Shack, will insure your toastie for a small extra charge and give you a second one if a gull flies away with the SquiresSt Andrews, Fife We've had their fish, now the gulls want our SharpScarborough, North Yorkshire Looking forward to when I can cash in my walk to the pub for a pint (These exercise apps reward steps with freebies – but which ones are worth the effort?, 16 August).Noel CullinaneLeeds Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The British Right should put Kent before Kyiv
Shortly after the local elections, in which the Conservative Party suffered one of its worst electoral defeats in living memory, I addressed a small group of shell-shocked Tories and warned them that the results indicated their party faced an existential challenge unlike any it had faced in its long history. To my astonishment, the post-speech discussion veered instantly towards the war in Ukraine and the US vice-president's perceived incivility towards President Zelensky. Momentarily losing my composure, I accused them of suffering from 'Ukraine Brain' and argued that polling in the run-up to the elections had made it unambiguously clear that the British people would rather its leaders prioritise 'the defence of Kent over the defence of Kiev [sic]'. There followed a stunned silence that was broken eventually by an aggressively whispered ' Kyiv.' The furious intensity with which so many Tories of a particular age follow every twist and turn of the Russia-Ukraine conflict – even when staring in the face of electoral oblivion – can be hard to understand. Perhaps the most plausible explanation is that it is psychological displacement, a way to sidestep the spectre of national decline by chasing the phantom of a geopolitical influence that has long since faded. The incident returned to my mind when reading Charles Moore's bracing column last weekend, in which he warned that National Conservatives like the US vice-president and myself were, as the headline theatrically put it, flirting with 'a perverted patriotism that may yet lead to neo-fascism'. In a Gallic modulation of Godwin's Law, Moore claimed he had detected an echo of the Vichy slogan ' Famille, Travail, Patrie ' ('Family, Work, Country') in the title of a speech I had given – 'Faith, Family, Flag, Freedom' – in which I argued that the New Right should adopt a version of Augustine's ordo amoris as the organising principle for a conservative politics of home and belonging. I did not mention Ukraine or Russia once, but my discussion of the importance of family and nationhood at a major conservative conference was to his mind evidence that I was a Pétainiste and so, by extension, a Poutiniste. He then cited my accurate observation that more people face penalties for free speech in Britain than in Russia as proof of my sympathy for the latter, when my point was to underscore the severity of Britain's free-speech crisis by comparing it to the most notoriously oppressive regime I could think of. (And, in any event, to note that X is worse than Y in respect of Z is not to endorse Y in any respect.) Baffled though I was by his reasoning, I found it hard to disagree with Moore's claim that a tension is indeed emerging across the Western world on the Right, on the neuralgic question of how to weigh national interest against risky and costly involvement in faraway conflicts. He was right too to note that the issue has become a key point of contention among National Conservatives, a global movement of the New Right numbering thousands of Right-wing politicians, academics, and commentators from dozens of countries. Where he went wrong was thinking that there is a single leading figure in the movement who does not unequivocally condemn Russia's unprovoked violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, or salute the extraordinary courage that nation has shown in defending itself against Putin's shameless aggression. Some view support for Ukraine as a moral and strategic stand against authoritarianism and are convinced that appeasement through negotiations with Russia will only embolden further aggression. Others argue that Western support is prolonging an unwinnable war and inflicting far greater suffering and destruction on Ukraine than might have been avoided had peace negotiations been pursued more vigorously early on. The debate highlights the principled realism of the New Right, a realism that tries to balance the claims of justice with the competing priorities of nations affected in different ways and to different degrees by geopolitical conflict. Regrettably, that is an approach that seems to enrage the Old Right, which insists on refracting almost every geopolitical crisis through the prism of the 1930s and 1940s. Steeped in the post-war myths of British exceptionalism – Chamberlain's folly, Churchill's heroism, the grit of the Blitz – they insist on treating Putin as Hitler, Zelensky as Churchill, Ukraine as Poland, and any pursuit of peaceful resolution as the appeasement of a Chamberlain or the collaboration of a Pétain. This mindset – 'World War Two Brain,' in the idiolect of the Right-wing Zoomers who are most mystified by it – motivates hopelessly muddled thinking and ignores the realpolitik of Russia's longstanding paranoia over Nato, the conflict's devastating effects on European energy prices, and the disastrous realignment of Russia with China. It is fuelling a confrontation that is inflicting damage on Ukraine from which it will take decades to recover, it is straining Britain's resources amidst a flurry of domestic challenges unprecedented in living memory, and it is demonising voices calling for peace and restraint. Thankfully, this is a mindset that the US vice-president unequivocally rejects. He understands that dewy-eyed idealism and anachronistic analogies are a recipe for conflict and instability, and that America must pursue peace through strength as it navigates a multipolar world that could not be more different from the geopolitical landscape that vanished nearly a century ago. As for the emerging figures on Britain's New Right, it is they alone who seem to understand that the time has come to rally behind politicians who will put Kent before Kyiv, Glasgow before Gaza, and Bournemouth before Beijing.
