Legislation to decriminalise abortion for women clears the Commons
This comes after the Commons backed Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment, which will remove the threat of 'investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy.
The issue was treated as a matter of conscience, with MPs given a free vote and the Government remaining neutral.
Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi (Chris McAndrew/PA)
Downing Street said the change to abortion laws must be 'workable and safe', following Tuesday's verdict.
MPs voted 379 to 137, majority 242, to back Ms Antoniazzi's amendment.
A No 10 spokesman said: 'We'll look at this in detail, considering whether any changes are necessary to make it workable and safe. But, of course, this would not change the intent of the amendment passed.'
The spokesman added: 'As with all laws, the Government has a responsibility to ensure it is safe and workable.'
The Bill will now undergo further scrutiny in the House of Lords.
It will also introduce a two-step verification process for the sale of knives and crossbows purchased online, and greater protections for emergency workers from racial and religious abuse during house calls are also included in the Bill.
Speaking during report stage on Tuesday, Ms Antoniazzi said she pushed for the change in the law after cases of women being investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions.
The Gower MP said: 'This is the right change at the right time. I implore colleagues who want to protect women and girls and abortion services to vote for new clause one.
'Let's ensure that not a single desperate woman ever again is subject to traumatic, criminal investigation at the worst moments in their lives.'
Medics or others who facilitate an abortion after the 24-week time limit could still face prosecution if the change becomes law.
Though the Government took a neutral stance on the vote, several Cabinet ministers were among the MPs who backed the amendment.
They included Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Defence Secretary John Healey, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, Environment Secretary Steve Reed, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Scotland Secretary Ian Murray, Wales Secretary Jo Stevens and Commons Leader Lucy Powell.
Kemi Badenoch and many members of the Conservative front bench voted against it but shadow education secretary Laura Trott voted in favour.
Abortion in England and Wales currently remains a criminal offence unless with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy, 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.
It is also legal to take prescribed medication at home if a woman is under 10 weeks pregnant.
Efforts to change the law to protect women from prosecution follow 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
38 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Human rights laws allowing 'feckless fathers' to avoid being deported, top police chief claims
Human rights laws are allowing offenders who have 'fecklessly' fathered children in Britain to avoid deportation, a top police chief said yesterday. Stephen Watson's comments come as both Labour and the Conservatives are finalising tough proposals on immigration, with ministers hoping to curtail the use of the European Convention on Human Rights by foreign criminals. A new Bill will contain measures designed to restrict the use of the 'right to private and family life' under Article 8 of the ECHR. Asked about its impact on policing in Britain, Sir Stephen said it wasn't for him to point out what the legislative framework should look like but said Article 8 was often used by offenders to overturn deportation decisions. 'It seems to me that is entirely unhelpful, particularly when people are simply claiming on the basis of having very often fecklessly fathered a number of children in our country, that they somehow shouldn't be deported because they've got the right to a family life,' he told the Policy Exchange think tank at a talk in London. 'Well, I – and I suspect most of the public – beg to differ.' Labour's crackdown will work in tandem with Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's plan for overseas 'return hubs' for foreign nationals with no right to be in the UK. Talks with Balkan nations including Kosovo and Moldova to establish hubs are ongoing. Sir Stephen took over Greater Manchester Police in 2021 when the force was in special measures, but it has now been recognised as the country's most improved force in three consecutive years under his leadership. In the wide-ranging talk, the chief constable also called for non-crime hate incidents to be scrapped. Sir Stephen said the policy, where data is collected for incidents when no crime has been committed, was 'past its sell-by-date'. 'This is the antithesis of doing the basics,' he said. Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has been rebuffed by Europe after calling for a shake-up of human rights laws. Speaking in Strasbourg yesterday she said the European Convention on Human Rights 'feels out of step with common sense' and needed to 'evolve'. But, Council of Europe secretary general Alain Berset said he opposed changes: 'I am not calling for reform of the ECHR, nor do I support any effort that would weaken it,' he told the Politico website. 'It should never be used as a scapegoat in domestic political debates.' Ms Mahmood said the public's confidence in the rule of law was now 'fraying'.
Spectator
43 minutes ago
- Spectator
Why the Tories should oppose regime change
As a minister I lived by mantras: simple principles that summed up how I believed you got things done. Faced with a PowerPoint presentation as means of influencing policy, I'd sling it back in the box with the injunction 'Think in ink' – in other words, make a proper sustained argument on paper instead of trying to advance shonky argument with a series of unevidenced assertions, a dodgy graph and the words 'levelling up' on every page in bold. Told that the prospect of a judicial review should mean shelving a policy, I'd write on the submission: 'If the legal advice says no, get a better lawyer.' Informed by officials that 'the Treasury are opposed', I'd invariably respond: 'The building may have a view, but I'd prefer to hear from a person, and unless that person is the Chancellor, we're going ahead.' My most frequent observation, repeated almost every hour, was: 'Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.' It's the golden rule of politics, and the advice I'd give now to those of my former colleagues who've been indulging in that favourite Tory pastime – grumbling about the leadership. The truth is there has never been a perfect Tory leader (although Lord Salisbury comes close). But Kemi Badenoch is good and getting better. Monday's announcement that the government would, after all, commission a national inquiry into the rape gang scandal was many things. Long overdue. An indictment of the moral cowardice of ministers. The very least the victims deserve. It was also a vindication of Badenoch. She had fought for it, forced vote after vote to try to secure it and been denounced for opportunism and dog-whistle racism as she sought only to give a voice to the women and girls betrayed for years. Finally, perhaps, a measure of justice may be coming – although, as John Power points out in his article, there are still ample grounds for fearing that the government will try even now to dodge the most difficult and important questions. Labour's U-turn on the inquiry is only their most recent surrender to arguments Badenoch has been making. The retreat on winter fuel payments followed sustained Conservative campaigning. The belated acceptance that men cannot become women by filling in a form meant acknowledging that Badenoch had indeed been right and not the bigot they had claimed her to be. Now, it appears, they may be on the verge of accepting she was correct about the long-term damage to tax revenues their Budget inflicted. Badenoch's leadership has been far from faultless. Spending Christmas quibbling with Nigel Farage over Reform's membership figures was beneath her. A commitment to restore tax privileges for independent schools is a gift not to disadvantaged pupils but to Labour campaigners determined to depict the Tories as the party of the privileged. The Conservatives foolishly chose last week to side with nimbys in a vote on necessary planning liberalisation, putting the interests of the asset-rich ahead of those of the aspirational. But these missteps are minor set against the government's sins, and they are all either forgettable or correctable. Would that the same could be said of Badenoch's internal critics – the incorrigible in pursuit of the impossible. The agitation for a change of course, in many conversations quickly succeeded by the contemplation of a change of leader, is uncomfortable evidence of the persistent political immaturity of too many Tories. They display the impatience of a toddler allied to the stroppiness of a teenager without either the charm of the first or the promise of the second. The party's desperate position in the polls is not of Badenoch's making. If there's any female Tory leader who should take responsibility for the unpopularity it's Liz Truss. There are attempts by some to revise the verdict on that brief period. And it is worth re-examining, because it was worse than many Tories are still prepared to admit. The party inflicted on the country a PM manifestly unfit for office who, whatever virtues any part of her programme may have had, implemented policy so ineptly that it toxified Tory ideas and tarnished Tory achievements. Far from being an icebreaker for another Thatcherite revolution, Truss was an ideologically-intoxicated joyrider who wrote off the country's best vehicle for necessary reform. That is why the process of restoring confidence both in Conservative ideas, and the Tory party as the means of delivering them, will take time and care. Credibility must be restored by demonstrating intellectual seriousness and the sort of detailed plan for implementation that John Hoskyns developed for Margaret Thatcher in the 1970s. And just as he helped ensure that the economic errors of the Heath premiership could be corrected, so the party now requires a similarly comprehensive account of how to control the migration which ran out of control in the Tories' final years in office. This will, undoubtedly, mean extricating ourselves from the European Convention on Human Rights as it stands. But that will not be enough on its own. Simply leaving the ECHR without addressing how it's become intertwined with other legal and judicial constraints on necessary executive action would be to promise transformation while being destined to disappoint – the approach of both Truss and Starmer, which has corroded faith in democracy and failed to deliver the change the country needs. Badenoch's decision to commission David Wolfson KC, the finest legal mind in the Lords, to review our entire judicial architecture is a sign of seriousness. It is a demonstration of responsibility, not an abdication of action. Some of the same critics who chide Badenoch for not being bolder or faster are also those who, with admirable inconsistency, complain about her combative character. Her ferocity in argument is undoubted, and it may make those Tories whose own arguments are weak uncomfortable to have them incinerated, Targaryen-style. But it hasn't put off donors, as a recent increase in financial support for the party indicates. In any case, successful political warfare requires not just courage in the heat of battle but care in the preparation of the campaign. To invoke another mantra – the right policy is the right politics. By being consistently right on policy Badenoch is, at last, providing the politics conservatism needs.
Spectator
43 minutes ago
- Spectator
My modest proposal
It's surely time we dropped our cynicism and got behind the government's National Abortion Drive, another noble attempt to kickstart our floundering economy. The United Kingdom has made great strides of late in this area, recently overtaking France in the number of abortions performed annually, the figures showing the largest increase since this sort of stuff was legalised. The door, then, is already ajar. All we need to do is push a little. Our elected representatives were intent on doing just that this week by voting for an amendment that will now decriminalise abortion right up to the day of birth. I don't wish to seem churlish, but to me this demonstrates a marked lack of imagination and ambition. Why not extend the period at which abortions are legal to several months, or even years, after the birth of the child? I understand that technically this would be known as 'infanticide' rather than 'abortion', but terminology should not stand in our way. There are plenty of left-wing ethicists, such as Pete Singer, who believe that infanticide is justifiable in many cases, using broadly the same arguments as those used to justify late-term abortions – that the foetus, or child, could not exist independently without its mother. Yes, I hear you cry, this is the same Pete Singer who thinks it's OK to shag dogs. But, as ever, you are missing the context and the caveats. Dr Singer believes that you may give your dog one only if it is part of a rich and caring relationship and does not involve coercion. I understand that it is sometimes a tricky issue to obtain written consent from a Dobermann Pinscher and that given the limited intellectual capacity of many dogs, they may not fully understand what they're getting themselves involved in. But Dr Singer is, as I have said, an ethicist, so I do not feel sufficiently qualified in challenging his jurisdiction on this issue. In any case, we are digressing. It is on the subject of infanticide that I've corralled Dr Singer into the argument and his advice here seems wholly sound. His views are nuanced – infanticide is justifiable only in cases of disability or, as he has put it, unwantedness. That is, if you've had the kid for a couple of weeks and decide it's an absolutely ghastly creature and all too much like hard work, you are allowed to terminate its existence. Pete does not offer advice on how to go about this business – poison? A rolling pin? Fed to the Rottweiler before your evening act of caring and consensual canine love? – but that's because he has much weightier matters on which he must adjudicate. His position, then, is what we might call ultra-utilitarian. It seems to me he might entirely agree with Jonathan Swift on the efficacy of eating children to assuage starvation, and the fact that he may not have realised that Jonny was having a laugh does not, for me, diminish the value of his arguments. Our abortion rate is soaring – and likely to soar still further if the likes of the Labour MP Stella Creasy get their way – although we still have some distance to go before we can match the achievements of the real abortion champions: countries such as Vietnam, Madagascar and Guinea-Bissau. Decriminalising abortion from 24 weeks to the day of birth will undoubtedly provide a fillip to the market and, frankly, given what we know about a foetus at 24 weeks – it has eyelashes, eyebrows, hair on the head and lungs and would be able to survive with medical care were it to be prematurely born – there doesn't seem to be a great moral difference, does there? Certainly not if you take the utilitarian view – and we should be honest here: what other view can there possibly be these days? In a sense, aborting a child at nine months is no more shocking than being able to go shopping on a Sunday, a notion which once appalled the pious in our society but which we now take for granted as our human right – to be able to buy crap on Sunday, just like on every other day of the week. And we are a much happier nation as a consequence. There are a few reasons for the huge rise in abortions recently. First, they are much easier to come by, as the medical clergy have become far more indulgent than used to be the case. Second, there has been the lessening of stigma regarding the procedure, especially now that we have banned those God-bothering dinosaurs from standing silently near abortion clinics praying and what have you. And third, because we have long since jettisoned the archaic principle that sexual intercourse is in some way related to having a child and that women (and men) who do not want a child would be best minded to refrain. Oddly – and this is truly mysterious – although we have got rid of that old dictum and ensured that everybody, everywhere, can get hold of contraceptive devices in myriad forms at any time of the day or night, this has not resulted in a reduction of unwanted pregnancies. Quite the reverse. Those silly old things, morals, seemed to have exerted a certain influence back in the day. Luckily, today we know it is a human right to behave without a vestige of morality. I should end with an apology to all the women readers who believe that men should not delve into the subject of abortions because it is something which doesn't concern them. It is, after all, a woman's body we are talking about, and she has a right to do whatever she wants with it. My only excuse is that as a columnist I very frequently write about things which have nothing to do with me directly, such as those rape-gang people. And at least the feminists urging decriminalisation know that I'm on their side.
