logo
The right to abortion is under threat in Britain. Secure it now – or risk losing it

The right to abortion is under threat in Britain. Secure it now – or risk losing it

The Guardian12-05-2025

Opening the Pandora's box of abortion reform is something no one should do without the confidence that they are able to manage the resulting chaos. Moves to decriminalise abortion, in response to the continued prosecution of women for having one, could unintentionally enable the restriction of access under a future regressive government. To prevent this and protect services, it is time to write into our statute that safe and legal access to abortion is a human right across our nation.
It still shocks many people to realise that in 2025 abortion is not actually legal for most of the UK. Only in Northern Ireland do women have a right to an abortion. Everywhere else they are exempted from prosecution if it is determined they have met certain access conditions. This is not a quaint jurisprudence debate – it is driving the explosion in recent years of investigations and prosecutions of women and girls for having abortions in England. A vulnerable 15-year-old girl who didn't know she was pregnant and had a late-term miscarriage found a police constable at her hospital bed. Others have spent years under suspicion and investigation, and in some cases in jail.
These cases, and the chilling effect they have on services, come at a time when the anti-abortion movement is turning its attention to our shores. Millions of pounds is flowing into campaigning and networking, pushing not for an explicit end to services but 'safeguards' – all ruses to make getting a termination harder. Incendiary language abounds, as decriminalisation is claimed to mean 'abortion at birth'. The US vice-president, JD Vance, has openly criticised our buffer zones that protect women going to clinics from harassment as 'anti free speech'. Ever the opportunist, Nigel Farage has argued parliament should debate a reduction in the time limit under which women can secure a termination. At the heart of this is a simple premise – women cannot be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies and should be policed accordingly.
I recognise the appeal of simple solutions to stop the prosecutions – including using the upcoming policing bill to insert a clause removing women from the application of the 18-century act that puts having an abortion on a par with assaulting a clergyman, bigamy and manslaughter. But in our toxic political environment this is to play Russian roulette with abortion access. It is a standard feature of any legislation that it gives the right to make secondary regulations to government about the topics in the bill – the Henry VIII powers that are the mainstay of executive overreach. Inserting the issue of abortion into any act of parliament without directing what happens next is like handing a future government a loaded gun to point at women's rights – if passed, this would give powers to restrict or even end access to abortion with minimal democratic opportunity to intervene.
This risk doesn't mean we shouldn't act. The battle to provide abortion at all in Northern Ireland began in earnest once we passed a law requiring the secretary of state to deliver treatment as a human right. Resistance came not just from the Democratic Unionist party, but also from those charged with delivery, including the civil service and healthcare departments. The secretary of state had to intervene or face direct censure. That meant when those in positions of power used their role to prevent services from being set up, ministers knocked heads together and got things moving again. We can learn from this now in protecting existing services such as buffer zones and shape future provision too. It is time that women in Birmingham, Bristol and Barry had the same constitutionally protected right as women in Belfast to a safe medical treatment if they choose not to continue a pregnancy.
This week we will lay an alternative amendment to the policing bill that doesn't just repeal the antiquated criminal law and free women from the threat of prosecution. It also puts in place a plan for what happens next – an explicit human rights framework to ensure safe access and prevent the rolling back of abortion rights, whoever is in power.
It would not alter the settled time limit for a termination, nor would it prevent prosecution of anyone who forces a woman to have an abortion. It would mean, for the first time in history, women here could point to their right to choose – and demand it is protected, as it is in France, Mexico, Colombia and Ireland. Any subsequent regulation affecting how abortions are provided, or equally importantly the work of those who offer them, would also have to uphold this human right too.
Crucially in our febrile political climate, this amendment comes with a democratic lock to prevent the use of secondary legislative powers to change these rights. If a future government wanted to destroy abortion provision it would have to get the consent of the whole parliament – giving all citizens the ability to lobby their MP accordingly. Pandora's box contained both chaos and hope – getting these proposals right could not only prevent further attacks on women's rights, but also finally put abortion access here on the health and human rights footing it deserves.
Stella Creasy is the Labour and Cooperative MP for Walthamstow

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

UK threatens to sue Abramovich over Chelsea sale
UK threatens to sue Abramovich over Chelsea sale

BBC News

timean hour ago

  • BBC News

UK threatens to sue Abramovich over Chelsea sale

The UK government has threatened to sue former Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich to make sure the money from the club's sale goes to £2.5bn in proceeds have been frozen in a UK bank account since the sale, with Mr Abramovich sanctioned after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February UK government wants the money to be for Ukrainian humanitarian aid, but Mr Abramovich has said he wants it to go to "all victims of the war in Ukraine".In a joint statement, Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: "While the door for negotiations will remain open, we are fully prepared to pursue this through the courts if required." They said they wanted "to ensure people suffering in Ukraine can benefit from these proceeds as soon as possible".They added: "The government is determined to see the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine, following Russia's illegal full-scale invasion. "We are deeply frustrated that it has not been possible to reach agreement on this with Mr Abramovich so far".The delay in releasing the funds centres on a disagreement between the UK government and his Abramovich - a Russian billionaire who made his fortune in oil and gas - was granted a special licence to sell Chelsea following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, providing he could prove he would not benefit from the is alleged to have strong ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, something he has cannot access the £2.5bn sale proceeds under UK sanctions but the money still legally belongs to he announced his decision to sell the club, he said proceeds from the sale would be donated via a foundation "for the benefit of all victims of the war in Ukraine", which would include those in Russia. The UK government has pushed back and argued that the funds should only be spent on humanitarian efforts inside Ukraine.A House of Lords committee said last year said it was "incomprehensible" that Mr Abramovich's promise to use the funds to support Ukraine remained unfulfilled, and that the assets remained frozen."This impasse reflects badly on both Mr Abramovich and the government, which ought to have pushed for a more binding commitment," the report said.

Newshour  UN calls for investigation into Gaza aid stations deaths
Newshour  UN calls for investigation into Gaza aid stations deaths

BBC News

timean hour ago

  • BBC News

Newshour UN calls for investigation into Gaza aid stations deaths

The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, has called for an independent investigation into the reported killing on Sunday of at least thirty-one Palestinians near a US-backed aid distribution centre in Gaza. Israel denied that their forces fired at people near the site. UN human rights chief, Volker Turk, tells us the incident shows Israel's disregard for Palestinian civilians. Also in the programme: Russia stands by its hard line demands at ceasefire talks in Istanbul, and the French parliament votes to posthumously promote Alfred Dreyfus, in an attempt to right one of histories most infamous anti-Semitic scandals (Picture: Palestinians who were killed in the Israeli army attacks near the American aid center in Rafah and the Muin area and Salahaddin Street in the east of Khan Yunis are being sent to their last journeys by their relatives at Nasser Medical Center in Khan Yunis city, Gaza on June 2, 2025. Photo by Abed Rahim Khatib/Anadolu via Getty Images)

UFC's Tom Aspinall moving on from 'retired' Jon Jones
UFC's Tom Aspinall moving on from 'retired' Jon Jones

Reuters

timean hour ago

  • Reuters

UFC's Tom Aspinall moving on from 'retired' Jon Jones

June 3 - Interim UFC heavyweight champion Tom Aspinall considers Jon Jones to be retired and wants to move on. Aspinall has not stepped into the Octagon since July 27, 2024, when he successfully defended the interim title with a first round knockout of Curtis Blades. That victory avenged the lone UFC defeat for Aspinall (8-1, 15-3 overall). Aspinall's July victory and Jones' win over Stipe Miocic in November 2024 would appear to warrant a unification bout, but there has been no news in the last seven months and some are calling for Jones to be stripped of his title. Jones hasn't competed in that span. "Jon Jones is retired," Aspinall said on ESPN's "Good Guy/Bad Guy" podcast on Monday. "I want to say God bless him moving forward in what he does with his life and career. We move on. I'm the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. I'm ready to take on all comers and get this division moving again. Jones (28-1), a two-time light heavyweight champion, who won the vacant heavyweight belt in March 2023, views the situation differently than Aspinall. "The UFC, I and Tom, we all got a lot of stuff happening behind the scenes," Jones said at a seminar in Thailand while filming a reality show, according to The Independent. "They're one of the biggest organizations in sports and right now, Tom and I have agreed to wait for the UFC to make their announcements. So I legally can't really talk about it." UFC CEO Dana White has expressed optimism that the bout would take place. In November, he referred to the potential matchup "the biggest fight in heavyweight history," but, until Jones' statements in Thailand, Jones had not shown interest in fighting the Englishman. The hold-up has delayed most of the bouts between any of the top-ranked heavyweights. "The other guys don't want to fight anybody because they might be next themselves," Aspinall said. "Everybody else is scared to fight. Nobody wants to make the next move. The division is completely stuck. I am sick of the division being stuck. I'm there. I'm active. I'm getting better all the time. Just stick me in. I'm ready to fight all of them." --Field Level Media

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store