Abortion is returning to British politics
Stella Creasy's amendment looks to decriminalise abortion and to make it a human right – but it would also ensure those who undergo a late-term abortion (up to birth) are not subject to prison sentences. Photo byThe decision to have an abortion is deeply private and extremely personal. One in three women in the UK have undergone or will undergo this procedure, and despite the views of some pro-life groups, it does not make them guilty of 'most significant violation of human rights to ever occur'. Since David Steel's 1967 Abortion Act, passed almost 60 years ago, women in the UK have been able to access abortion up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy, safely and under the care of a medical professional. Because that is what abortion is: a medical procedure, one which it is essential that women in continue to be able to access safely, privately and without judgement.
Countless women before Steel's reforms were not as fortunate; those who needed or wanted to end a pregnancy before 1967 were forced into desperate measures, making dangerous attempts at home or obtaining one via an illegal abortionist, some of whom were woefully qualified. The back-street abortionist, who looms in Annie Ernaux's memoir Happening, is hard to forget. After obtaining an illegal abortion in 1963, the 23-year-old Ernaux almost died but she could not seek medical assistance, or she could have been prosecuted. Though this is a French example, back-street abortionists and dangerous at-home methods were extremely prevalent in the UK before 1967; that women are now able to access these procedures safely shows how much progress we've made since the Abortion Act.
But despite Steel's progressive reforms, accessing an abortion in England and Wales in 2025 is still technically illegal. The Abortion Act decriminalised abortion under certain circumstances, exempting women from prosecution, but the act is framed in a way which means that abortion is not a right. Though men enjoy complete autonomy over their reproductive health, women are still limited in theirs. Since 1967 they have continued to be prosecuted for accessing an abortion under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act; a recent example being Nicola Packer, who was arrested for taking abortion pills at 26 weeks. (Packer has since been acquitted, as she believed she was only six weeks along when she took the pills.)
Two amendments to the government's Crime and Policing Bill, which enters its report stage in the House of Commons this week, aim to change this. One (known as NC1) has been brought by the Welsh Labour MP for Llanelli, Tonia Antoniazzi. It seeks to remove 'women from the criminal law related to abortion', meaning that 'no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy'. Under NC1, women would be completely removed from the criminal framework (they would no longer be able to be prosecuted under the 1861 Act) but medical professionals would not be exempt. The logic of this is to make the law unworkable in practice, as accessing abortion is unsafe without medical assistance, meaning it will eventually be changed to exempt medical professionals from criminal liability.
Antoniazzi's amendment accounts for the sensitivity of this issue; instead of going full force on decriminalisation, and therefore risking a regression, it looks to change the law by stealth. NC1 has been backed by more than 50-cross party MPs, including Labour's Nadia Whittome and Antonia Bance and the Liberal Democrats' Daisy Cooper, as well as pro-choice organisations such as MSI Reproductive Choices and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.
Another (known as NC20) has been brought by Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow. Creasy's amendment also looks to decriminalise abortion and to make it a human right. Unlike Antoniazzi's amendment, however, NC20 would remove criminal penalties for both women and medical professionals involved in abortions at the same time. It would ensure those who undergo a late-term abortion (up to birth) are not subject to prison sentences. Creasy's amendment does not provide for coercive abortion offences, nor does it allow for the potential amendment of abortion law in the Commons in the future. In other words, this amendment would immediately force a major departure from the UK's current abortion laws almost overnight, if it is passed. In contrast to NC1, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, MSI Choices and other pro-choice groups have not backed NC20. Rachel Clarke, head of advocacy at BPAS said: 'It is essential that any huge change to abortion law is properly considered.'
There is a pervading sense of confusion among Labour MPs (many of whom are broadly supportive of liberalising abortion rights) over why two amendments are being brought which essentially aim to do the same thing. Others are worried that by bringing two amendments at the same time draws too much attention to this issue; abortion rights are both incredibly important and incredibly divisive. They worry that debating both at once undermines the ability to make positive change. Though the public remain widely supportive of abortion rights (87 per cent are in favour), this support dips as soon as the question turns to whether the 24-week limit. While just under half (49 per cent) of Britons support 24-weeks, a quarter of the public think it is too late.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Some in politics already believe the debate should be re-opened. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, has already called for a debate the UK's abortion limit, with the aim of rolling-back the timeline. 'Is 24 weeks right for abortion given that we now save babies at 22?' he said. 'That to me would be worthy of a debate in parliament.' If the law moves too quickly to the extreme, this could be ripe ground for Farage and other pro-life MPs and campaigners to capitalise on. That a quarter of the public are against 24 weeks is already a substantial number and it could only grow if fuelled by the right campaign. The last thing women in the UK need is a regression in their ability to access a safe and supervised abortion.
Creasy clearly believes her amendment is a noble one. Writing for Glamour magazine, she said: 'No one should have to explain why they choose to have an abortion, nor fear a knock on the door from the police if they do.' And she's right. An abortion is a private medical decision made by a woman with advice from her doctor. But Creasy forgets that the UK is a small-c conservative country. Radical changes do not happen overnight. Pushing back more than 150 years of legislation must be done sensitively, and by stealth. If Parliament moves too suddenly to change the UK's archaic abortion laws, it risks undoing decades of fundamental progress for a woman's right to control her own body; progress which we must not be forced to give up.
[See also: The legacy of 'pro-life' abortion bans is death]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
25 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Report criticises ‘major failing' to gather ethnicity data on grooming gangs
Speaking as a review of grooming gangs by Baroness Casey was published on Monday, Yvette Cooper told MPs: 'While much more robust national data is needed, we cannot and must not shy away from these findings, because, as Baroness Casey says, ignoring the issues, not examining and exposing them to the light, allows the criminality and depravity of a minority of men to be used to marginalise whole communities.' Yvette Cooper makes a statement in the House of Commons on grooming gangs (House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA) She said Baroness Casey found examples of organisations 'avoiding the topic altogether for fear of appearing racist or raising community tensions'. Ms Cooper said: 'These findings are deeply disturbing, but most disturbing of all, as Baroness Casey makes clear, is the fact that too many of these findings are not new.' Currently ethnicity is only recorded for around 37% of suspects. The report found that: 'The appalling lack of data on ethnicity in crime recording alone is a major failing over the last decade or more. Questions about ethnicity have been asked but dodged for years. 'Child sexual exploitation is horrendous whoever commits it, but there have been enough convictions across the country of groups of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds to have warranted closer examination. 'Instead of examination, we have seen obfuscation. In a vacuum, incomplete and unreliable data is used to suit the ends of those presenting it. The system claims there is an overwhelming problem with white perpetrators when that can't be proved. 'This does no-one any favours at all, and least of all those in the Asian, Pakistani or Muslim communities who needlessly suffer as those with malicious intent use this obfuscation to sow and spread hatred.' Baroness Casey called the crimes of grooming gangs 'one of the most heinous' in society (James Manning/PA) Ms Cooper unveiled the findings from the rapid national audit to MPs, after the Prime Minister committed to launching a national inquiry into the abuse. She gave 'an unequivocal apology for the unimaginable pain and suffering' that victims had faced, and 'the failure of our country's institutions through decades.' Children's Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza said: 'The girls at the heart of this scandal have been failed by every professional in their lives. 'They, and the institutions that were intended to protect them, ignored their voices and sidelined their experiences. 'They must be held accountable for turning a blind eye to a sustained campaign of violence against young girls by predatory men. This is a source of national shame.' The National Crime Agency (NCA) will carry out a nationwide operation targeting people who have sexually exploited children, and follow up on an estimated more than 1,000 cold cases where no one was convicted. The gangs' harrowing crimes have typically targeted children, mainly girls, as young as 10, some of whom were in care, had physical or mental disabilities, or who had already suffered neglect or abuse. Baroness Casey's review looked at around a dozen live investigations into grooming gangs, and found 'a significant proportion of these cases appear to involve suspects who are non-UK nationals and/or who are claiming asylum in the UK.' The Home Secretary has pledged to exclude convicted sex offenders from the asylum system. In her report, Lady Casey said it is time to draw a line in the sand and take action over the issue, which she called 'one of the most heinous crimes in our society'. Her report concluded: 'Unless government and all the organisations involved are able to stand up and acknowledge the failures of the past, to apologise for them unreservedly, and to act now to put things right, including current cases, we will not move on as a society.' Speaking in Westminster, Lady Casey called for an end to 'political football' over the scandal, adding: 'I think it would be a real shame if politicians from the opposition parties and people in wider society didn't see that this is a chance to create a national reset, that the only thing that really matters is the protection of children.' The Government has accepted her recommendation that any adult man who has penetrative sexual activity with a child under 16 will face a mandatory rape charge. Police forces will be made to gather data on the ethnicity and nationality of child abusers, and rules for the licensing of taxi drivers will also be tightened to stop drivers operating outside the area where they are licensed.
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Primary school pupils using screens for tests is ‘normalising' use, Tories claim
Shadow education secretary Laura Trott said the Government was instilling screen usage for children as young as four, as the Government came under pressure to ban smartphones in schools. Ms Trott said the policy was supported by teachers, health professionals and parents. She said: 'Every day we have new evidence of the harm screens are doing. So why is the Education Secretary (Bridget Phillipson) ignoring this, and still pressing ahead with screen-based assessments for children as young as four from September? 'Does she accept that this is normalising screen time for young people, which is the opposite of what we should be doing?' Education minister Stephen Morgan said: 'Is this all she can go on? Frankly, after 14 years, they broke the education system. As I said, there's guidance already in place for schools, the majority of schools already have a ban in place on mobile phone use.' Earlier in the Commons, Mr Morgan had told MPs mobile phones had 'no place' in schools. He said Government guidance said schools should ban the use of smartphones during the school day. However ,he said it was up to schools to use their powers to take them off pupils. Shadow education secretary Laura Trott claimed the Government was normalising screen time for young children (Stefan Rousseau/PA) Conservative MPs raised the links between mobile phone usage and violent behaviour, as well as schools with bans having better grades on average. Conservative MP Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) said: 'Schools with smartphone bans were rated higher by Ofsted, and their students achieved better GCSE results. So all the evidence shows the benefit of banning smartphones in schools. 'But the Government is simply issuing non-statutory guidance and passing the buck. So does the minister not understand the evidence, need more evidence, or do you not trust the Government to be able to implement a ban on smartphones in schools?' Meanwhile, John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) said: 'Mobile phones in classrooms are linked to disruptive and violent behaviour. So does the minister agree with me that mobile phones should be banned in all schools, so the children are focused on their education and not glued to Instagram and TikTok?' While in government, the then Conservative education secretary, Gillian Keegan, sent guidance to schools that told headteachers they could ban mobile phones during the school day. However, this was short of an out-and-out ban. Since their election defeat last year, the Conservatives have pushed for Labour to introduce a full ban. In March, it tried to amend Labour's flagship education policy to legally prohibit smartphone usage. A Government spokesperson said the existing guidance meant about 97% of schools restrict mobile phone use in some way. Studies are unclear on the impact of a smartphone ban. One by the University of Birmingham, published in the Lancet earlier this year, suggested there was no link. Replying to Ms Bool, Mr Morgan said: 'I'll take no lectures from the benches opposite on this. When in government, they exclaimed the same guidance meant a consistent approach across all schools. So you have to ask, were they wrong then, are they wrong now?'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Giving children phones is the same as giving them cigarettes - they must be banned in schools, warns top Tory
Giving children smartphones is the same as giving them cigarettes, shadow education secretary Laura Trott has said. Renewing her call for ministers to ban phones in schools, she said they were just as inappropriate for pupils as tobacco. And she also criticised the Government over plans to have screen-based testing for Reception children, saying it 'normalises' tablets. Mrs Trott has forbidden her own three children from owning a smartphone until they are 16, and believes other parents should do the same. Yesterday, she said schools implementing blanket bans would make it easier for families to follow suit at home. She said: 'Giving children smartphones is the equivalent of giving them cigarettes. 'Children are increasingly glued to their phones, often at the cost of real social interactions, their well-being and attainment. 'Countries around the world have woken up to the damage phones are doing to young people, but Labour are still dragging their feet.' Mrs Trott, MP for Sevenoaks, has previously said it is her 'mission' to get ministers to legislate for mobile phones to be banned in schools. Non-statutory guidance was issued to this effect under the Tories in 2024 - but schools were not legally obliged to follow it. Earlier this year, the Tories tabled an amendment to the Schools Bill which would have made phone bans in classrooms the law, but it was defeated by Labour MPs. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has previously branded the proposal a 'headline-grabbing gimmick'. Yesterday, Mrs Trott said this was 'wrong' and added: 'Even the Department for Education's own evidence shows half of GCSE classes are disrupted daily by phones. 'Another U-turn from this Government is inevitable, so they should act now: ban smartphones in schools, shift homework off screens, and reset the norm on when children get their first phone, before it's too late.' She added in comments to Politics Home: 'One of the best things we can do for pupils' mental health in schools is to take out the phones.' Last week, it was revealed the Department for Education (DfE) had written new guidelines requiring schools to assess Reception-age pupils using screens. Grilling ministers in the Commons yesterday, Mrs Trott said: 'The Secretary of State may have dismissed banning smartphones in schools as a gimmick but teachers, health professionals and parents are all calling for action to reduce children's screentime. 'Every day, we have new evidence of the harm screens are doing. 'So why is the Education Secretary ignoring this and still pressing ahead with screen-based assessments for children as young as four from September? 'Does she accept that this is normalising screentime for young people, which is the opposite of what we should be doing?' Education minister Stephen Morgan ducked the testing question and replied: 'There's guidance already in place for schools, the majority of schools already have a ban in place on mobile phone use.' According to the Government, 97 per cent of schools restrict mobile phone use in some way. It comes after the Government's National Behaviour Survey found 46 per cent of GCSE pupils reported phones causing disruption in most or all lessons. In addition, a Canadian study found teenagers who spend more than two hours a day scrolling on their phones double their risk of developing anxiety and quadruple their chances of depression. Meanwhile, a separate poll found a quarter of 11 to 18-year-olds in the UK now spend the majority of their free time outside school scrolling on their phones. The poll by the charity OnSide, found half of these - 52 per cent - want to break their addiction and reduce their screen time, but do not know how.
