British lawmakers vote to decriminalize abortion amid concern about the prosecution of women
LONDON — British lawmakers voted Tuesday to decriminalize abortion in England and Wales after a lawmaker argued it was cruel to prosecute women for ending a pregnancy.
The House of Commons approved an amendment to a broader crime bill that would prevent women from being criminally punished under an antiquated law.
Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour member of Parliament who introduced one of the amendments, said the change was needed because police have investigated more than 100 women for suspected illegal abortions over the past five years, including some who suffered natural miscarriages and stillbirths.
'This piece of legislation will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help,' she said. 'Just what public interest is this serving? This is not justice, it is cruelty and it has got to end.'
The amendment passed 379-137. The House of Commons will now need to pass the crime bill, which is expected, before it goes to the House of Lords, where it can be delayed but not blocked.
Under current law, doctors can legally carry out abortions in England, Scotland and Wales up to 24 weeks, and beyond that under special circumstances, such as when the life of the mother is in danger. Abortion in Northern Ireland was decriminalized in 2019.
Changes in the law implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic allow women to receive abortion pills through the mail and terminate their own pregnancies at home within the first 10 weeks.
That has led to a handful of widely publicized cases in which women were prosecuted for illegally obtaining abortion pills and using them to end their own pregnancies after 24 weeks or more.
Anti-abortion groups opposed the measures, arguing it would open the door to abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.
'Unborn babies will have any remaining protection stripped away, and women will be left at the mercy of abusers,' said Alithea Williams, public policy manager for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which describes itself as the U.K.'s biggest pro-life campaign group.
The debate came after recent prosecutions have galvanized support to repeal parts of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
In one case, a mother of three was sentenced to more than two years in prison in 2023 for medically inducing an abortion about eight months into her pregnancy.
Carla Foster, 45, was released about a month later by an appeals court that reduced her sentence. Judge Victoria Sharp said that case called for 'compassion, not punishment' and there was no useful purpose in jailing her.
Last month, a jury acquitted Nicola Packer on a charge of unlawfully self-administering poison or a noxious thing with intent to procure a miscarriage. Packer, who took abortion medicine when she was about 26 weeks pregnant, testified that she did not know she had been pregnant more than 10 weeks.
Supporters of the bill said it was a landmark reform that would keep women from going to prison for ending their pregnancy.
'At a time when we're seeing rollbacks on reproductive rights, most notably in the United States, this crucial milestone in the fight for reproductive rights sends a powerful message that our lawmakers are standing up for women,' said Louise McCudden of MSI Reproductive Choices.
A second amendment that would have gone even further than Antoniazzi's proposal, barring the prosecution of medical professionals and others who help women abort their fetuses, did not get to a vote.
A competing Conservative measure that would have required an in-person appointment for a pregnant woman to get abortion pills was defeated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
31 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Learning from the past makes better policy
Photo by Douglas Miller/Keystone/Getty Images Harold Wilson famously quipped that a successful prime minister needs 'sleep and a sense of history'. Gordon Brown, armed with a PhD in the history of the Scottish Labour Party, actively championed integrating historical insights into governmental practice. Today's politicians however, trapped in 24-hour news cycles, soundbites and crisis management, probably don't have time to consult the history books. Despite the pressures and tempo of governance in the 21st century, there is a growing imperative to look to history in order to sharpen decision-making. In an era marked by swift, radical changes in short-term political cycles, history can offer strategies for future-proofing policy – especially when the future appears unpredictable. Historical approaches to policy encourage us to consider context, continuity, and long-term consequences. These tools can provide comprehensive frameworks to counter the corrosive effects of policy churn and the erosion of institutional memory. Just as we strive to avoid treating policy areas in isolation, we must also resist separating present-day policy priorities and decisions from their historical contexts. Lasting positive outcomes typically emerge gradually from multiple, interconnected efforts rather than single interventions. This idea can be seen across a range of policy areas, as shown by the British Academy's Policy Histories series, which has so far examined the histories of regional development, environmental, science, trade, and health policy. The series demonstrates the value of historical insights and makes clear that policy history is not purely the realm of historians. Policy histories are a multidisciplinary affair that can involve economists, geographers, and many other researchers. British health policy history since the mid-1800s shows that population health improvements have been driven by far more than advancements in healthcare services alone. These improvements were achieved not only by explicit 'health policy' initiatives, but significantly by measures addressing broader determinants of health: sanitation, economic development, education, and environmental factors. Consider the 'plural formation' that historian Tom Crook identifies in nineteenth-century health policy: instead of a single, centralised programme, a patchwork of initiatives unfolded at various levels of government. Four key priorities laid the groundwork for Britain's population boom – from approximately 10.5 million in 1801 to nearly 21m by 1851 – including improved sanitation and civic cleanliness, protection of factory workers' health (especially children), state-driven medical responses to infectious diseases, and increased accessibility to doctors, medicines, and hospital care. This multi-layered approach created conditions for the sustained improvements in public health we rarely see today. Recent reports on the failure of plans to boost access to NHS dentistry are just one example of the need for multiple, complementary interventions that address wider societal issues to tackle health policy challenges in the long term. Successive governments have made narrowing Britain's regional inequalities — or 'levelling up', as the previous government jargonised it — a flagship ambition. History shows why it matters: London's per-capita GDP now sits about 77 per cent above the national average, compared with 37 per cent in 1921. This trajectory teaches two crucial lessons. First, the UK economy is not a single engine orbiting London but a mosaic of interdependent local and regional systems. Second, policies that focus only on jobs and headline growth miss the point; de-industrialisation and the 2008 financial crisis have loosened the traditional link between employment and prosperity. Today, the magnetism of a place depends as much on affordable housing, reliable transport, and robust public services as on raw growth figures. Any credible regional-development strategy must start there. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Trade policy has unexpectedly become a sitting duck for Keir Starmer's government. Yet the strategic dilemmas are hardly new. After 1945 Britain faced a stark choice: cling to a sterling-centred trading bloc – the 'two-world' option – or accept a dollar-dominated multilateral system. Either path raised a second, equally consequential question: how tightly should Britain bind itself to the continent and in the post-war period, the fledgling European project? Trade architecture was grand strategy then, and it is now. Naturally, the landscape has changed. Britain has exited the European Union; sterling is no longer a reserve rival to the dollar; China is the world's second largest economy by GDP; and Washington – under Donald Trump – is re-writing the rules. A credible twenty-first-century trade strategy must walk the line between commerce, geopolitics and domestic welfare. The goal should not be to reprise post-war solutions, but to confront the same enduring question: how do we balance the needs of international trade while also safeguarding domestic industries and interests, and ensuring a sustainable policy ecosystem for future generations? While each policy history has a different story to tell, there are many cross-cutting themes that remain constant. This suggests that there are key elements of policymaking that endure no matter what area you are working on. Questions relating to governance such as public trust in political leaders and the need for transparency, openness and inclusivity across the policymaking process are recurring themes. Culture and society also emerge as an important but often overlooked element in shaping public opinion, building and eroding trust, and influencing policy decisions. Fostering a culture of critical reflection and continuity within policymaking processes can transform seemingly isolated or arcane historical lessons into cohesive strategies for resilient governance. Perhaps most importantly for the current age of polycrisis, a critical lens on history not only offers clarity on how we arrived at our current circumstances but also provides sharper insights into future possibilities. When uncertainty and rapid change are the norm, the real advantage lies in imagining multiple plausible futures – and in crafting the strategies that let us shape, rather than merely survive them. Related
Daily Mirror
33 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Nigel Farage humiliated by ex-teacher's question about 'awful case'
Labour's Adam Thompson and Angela Rayner poked fun of Nigel Farage after the Reform leader claimed to have unearthed £7billion of savings when the real figure was 250 times lower Nigel Farage's dodgy maths has been brutally mocked at PMQs. Labour MP Adam Thompson, a former teacher, drew laughs across the Commons as he highlighted an "awful" case where a 61-year-old man got his sums horrifically wrong. He demanded to know what the Government was doing to help adults learn maths after leaving school. He then revealed he was talking about the Reform UK leader. Mr Farage came under fire after claiming to have unearthed £7billion of "wasteful" spending on diversity and equality programmes in Whitehall. But closer inspection showed the civil service actually spent £27million - 250 times less, the Commons heard. The Reform leader looked sheepish as both Mr Thompson and Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner poked fun of him. Ms Rayner showed it proved that Reform's sums "don't add up". Backbencher Mr Thompson asked: "As a trained physics teacher and a former engineering lecturer, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister what this government is doing to help people improve their math skills after they've left school? "I came across an awful case the other day, a 61-year-old man who believes he counted up £7billion in government spending, but it was really only £27 million. "What can we do to people like the leader of Reform UK, who evidently can't add up." Mr Farage, 61, watched on as the exchange unfolded. Ms Rayner, who was stepping in for Keir Starmer as he was returning from the G7 summit in Canada, responded: "Mr Speaker, my friend highlights an important fact - Reform's sums simply don't add up. "He'll be pleased to know that we're investing £136million for skills boot camps, and I will be sure to send the details to the honourable member for Clacton (Mr Farage)." At the end of last month, Reform said cutting DEI programmes would make the massive saving. A spokesman for the party told The Times that the figure came from a review of spending carried out by the Conservative Way Forward group. It also includes councils, school boards, universities and government grants to charities, the newspaper reported - and even that figure is under dispute.
The National
38 minutes ago
- The National
Angela Rayner refuses to rule out removing whip over welfare vote
Speaking at Prime Minister's Questions, Rayner, who was standing in for Keir Starmer, claimed to be 'committed to ending child poverty' but refused to answer whether Labour MPs would be allowed to oppose proposed welfare cuts without facing repercussions. Labour have previously said they are planning on changing the eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payments (PIP), which the UK Government's own analysis has said will push 250,000 people into poverty, including 50,000 children. The Welfare Reform Bill has faced fierce criticism from opposition parties and some Labour MPs as it looks to reduce the number of working-age people on sickness benefits in a bid to save £5 billion a year by the end of the decade. READ MORE: Angela Rayner refuses to not rule out following US into war on iran SNP MP Pete Wishart challenged Rayner on Wednesday about whether she believes that Labour MPs have the right to oppose the proposed 'devastating cuts'. (Image: PA) He said: 'I remember when the Deputy Prime Minister was a fierce critic of austerity and a proud champion for the disabled. 'But today, her government is introducing its five billion pounds disability cuts bill, which will push another 250,000 people into poverty. 'Does she agree that everyone has the right to oppose such devastating cuts? 'So, is it the Prime Minister's intention to remove the whip from any Labour MP who does the right thing and votes against these disability cuts?' Rayner refused to answer Wishart's question as she replied that she would like to 'gently' say that the current Labour Government has given the biggest amount of increase to Scotland's budget. She went on to say: 'We're absolutely committed to ending child poverty. We've already introduced free school meals. 'We're already supporting families. 'We've given a living wage rise to over millions of workers that need it. 'We're getting the job.' Despite Rayner's claims about giving the biggest amount of increase to Scotland's budget, the Fraser of Allander Institute at the University of Strathclyde said there were 'significant reductions in funding for the Scottish Government' relative to what was previously forecast. Following the Chancellor's announcement in March, Scotland's top financial institution estimated that the Scottish Budget will be around £900 million worse off on the current side in 2029/30 than previously projected. Labour are also facing a potential rebellion over the vote on the Welfare Reform Bill as around 100 MPs have already signed a letter warning Starmer that they will not support sweeping cuts to disability benefits. The letter warned Labour ministers that a significant group of MPs who are not 'consistent rebels' have major misgivings about plans to cut back both Pip and the health component of Universal Credit.
