Why Scotland must press on with abortion law reform
Last week's vote in Westminster is welcome progress, but as abortion law is devolved in Scotland, the change will only apply to women in England and Wales. This means that Scotland now stands as the only nation in the UK that has not moved to remove abortion from the criminal law. That must change.
Read more:
No qualified surgeons on panel to advise Scottish Government
Minister criticised for backtracking on abortion care comments
'Only one Scottish doctor is trained in surgical care to legal limit'
When I co-founded Back Off Scotland in 2020 to end protests outside abortion facilities, I was struck to learn how out-of-step our laws were with how abortion care is actually provided. Despite important innovations in abortion provision – such as the introduction of telemedical abortion – Scotland's legal framework remains stuck in the 20th Century.
Our abortion law – the Abortion Act 1967 – is now almost 60 years old. Whilst this was revolutionary piece of legislation in the sixties, it is now no longer fit for purpose.
Under this law, all abortions still require two doctors' signatures, and women must meet specific legal criteria to qualify for an abortion. In practice, this means that simply not wanting to be pregnant is not a valid reason to have an abortion.
Despite this, Scotland has taken bold steps to improve abortion access in the past: for example, through the introduction of telemedicine during the pandemic.
Introduced at pace by the Scottish Government to reduce the spread of the Coronavirus and ensure that those who needed an abortion were still able to access one during the pandemic, the temporary introduction of Early Medical Abortion at Home (EMAH) in March 2020 meant that women under 12 weeks' gestation were able to take both abortion medications – mifepristone and misoprostol – at home if strict criteria were met following a remote teleconsultation.
Off the back of calls from various medical bodies and women's rights groups, as well as evidence from the largest study on telemedical abortion in the world which found this method of care to be 'safe, effective, and improves care', provisions were made permanent in Scotland in 2022.
Whilst Scotland led the way in some areas, in others we've fallen far behind. Perhaps most notably in sending women to England for abortion beyond 20 weeks' gestation. One woman every four days has to travel from Scotland to a BPAS clinic in England to access abortion care because no health board provides care up to the legal limit of 24 weeks' gestation – a shameful stain on our pro-choice country.
The reasons that women seek abortion after 20 weeks are complex and varied, but often involve devastating life changes, medical diagnoses, and delayed recognition of pregnancy. Yet the NHS in Scotland abandons these women, and over the years, thousands have had to make this journey despite being legally entitled to receive this care in Scotland.
In 2014, government-commissioned research into Scottish womens' experiences of travelling to England for care was published. The findings were bleak and improving solutions to access these abortions were described by researchers as a 'necessity'.
Despite warm words and countless commitments from the Scottish Government, this status-quo has gone unchanged for decades and caused untold levels of harm to the women who have had to make this journey.
In 2023 when Humza Yousaf was standing to become leader of the SNP, Back Off Scotland wrote to him asking him to make three key pledges: to implement buffer zones, to stop the practice of sending women to England for abortion care by ensuring services can be accessed within Scotland, and to decriminalise abortion. He pledged to deliver all three, but only the first has been achieved.
When Humza committed to decriminalising abortion, we seized the moment. Together with 18 pro-choice partners, such as Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, Engender, and the Humanist Society Scotland, we wrote to him calling for a full review of abortion law in Scotland, with a view to modernising it in the coming years.
The government responded, and established an Expert Group in 2024. That group is now at work and is expected to deliver its findings and recommendations in the coming months.
This review will bring much needed clarity to the status of abortion law in Scotland. As abortion in Scotland is governed by common law, there is widespread confusion and uncertainty over whether a woman could be prosecuted as they have been in England.
This uncertainty was further exacerbated following the recent publication of guidance from the UK National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC), which suggested that women experiencing pregnancy loss should have their homes and digital devices checked, as well as their medical records and reproductive tracking devices investigated to see if any laws had been broken.
Whilst there was rightly national outcry about this, it remains unclear whether the guidance applies to Scotland and whether Police Scotland would be prepared to use similar tactics to those used by English police forces who have criminalised women under abortion offences.
A review into abortion law has never been more pressing or urgent. With public backing, political will, and expert consensus behind abortion law reform, the momentum is undeniable. After last week's historic vote in Westminster, the time for Scotland to reform our outdated abortion law is now.
Lucy Grieve is Co-Founder of Back Off Scotland, and Policy and Engagement Manager at the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
26 minutes ago
- The National
BBC Scotland breached standards with Labour peer on Debate Night
The BBC hosted a 'Glasgow Special' episode of the show on the night of June 4 – a day before voters were set to go to the polls for the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. The panel show featured the SNP's Glasgow Council leader Susan Aitken, Scottish Tory MSP Annie Wells, artist David Eustace as well as both Scottish Labour MSP Paul Sweeney and Labour peer Willie Haughey. But the BBC didn't disclose that Haughey is a Labour peer – instead describing him as an 'entrepreneur' on social media and a Labour donor. READ MORE: Scottish 85-year-old pens scathing letter to Keir Starmer over immigration rules He has donated over £1 million to the party between 2003 and 2010. Now, the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit has ruled that it represented a breach of the BBC's standards of accuracy. 'The ECU accepted that the programme should have made Lord Haughey's status as a Labour peer clear and agreed that not doing so represented a breach of the BBC's standards of accuracy,' it wrote. 'It noted, however, that BBC Scotland had already published a posting to that effect on the Corrections and Clarifications page of the BBC website, and considered this sufficient to resolve the issue of complaint.' But it was the makeup of the panel (below) that drew particular anger from the SNP and the Scottish Greens. (Image: BBC/Twitter) An SNP source at the time told The National that Debate Night appears to have 'thrown the BBC's proposed guidance on balance out of the window' by including two Labour representatives. This was before we subsequently revealed that Eustace also appears to be a prominent Scottish Labour supporter. The Glasgow Greens submitted a formal complaint to the BBC, highlighting that it has far more elected representatives than the Tories – for example – and branding it a 'farce'. Now, the BBC have also responded to the complaint and argued that the panel makeup didn't breach its impartiality guidelines. 'While the composition of the panel would have been inappropriate for an item governed by the BBC's election guidelines, these apply in the case of by-elections only to coverage of the by-election itself or the constituency in which it is taking place,' the ECU ruled. 'The item in question was unconnected with the impending by-election, and focused on the future regeneration of Glasgow, a topic on which (as the ensuing discussion illustrated) there is a large measure of cross-party agreement.' The statement added: 'The ECU considered the composition of the panel appropriate to the circumstances and found no breach of the BBC's standards of impartiality.'
Spectator
32 minutes ago
- Spectator
Tories accuse Sturgeon of breaking ministerial code over indyref2
The SNP's former Dear Leader Nicola Sturgeon released her memoir this week – but it has not quite had the reception she anticipated. The trailed excerpts prompted Alex Salmond's allies to accuse Sturgeon of besmirching her former mentor's name, brought her failed gender reform bill to the fore and confused pro-independence supporters after the Queen of the Nats hinted she was considering a move to, er, London. Now another admission in the 450-page tome has led the Scottish Tories to write to the Scottish Permanent Secretary to examine whether Sturgeon broke the ministerial code. Craig Hoy posted his letter to Joe Griffin on Twitter today, fuming that Sturgeon's memoir had revealed the former first minister had 'wasted taxpayers' money on a doomed court case for party political reasons'. In his letter, Hoy stresses: In the book, the former first minister stated that the Scottish government's reference to the Supreme Court on whether it had the power to hold an independence referendum unilaterally was 'in all likelihood impossible' to succeed. The Scottish ministerial code states that ministers and officials should 'ensure that their decisions are informed by appropriate analysis of the legal considerations and that the legal implications of any course of action are considered at the earliest opportunity'. If the then-first minister has now publicly admitted that she thought it was 'impossible' for this court reference to succeed, yet proceeded with it anyway, this constitutes a clear failure to follow the legal implications of her chosen course of action at the earliest opportunity. Nicola Sturgeon suggested that the reason she proceeded with the reference was because she was 'in a bind' with her party members and supporters. The Supreme Court reference ended up costing taxpayers a quarter of a million pounds. This political use of public money is in clear violation of paragraph 1.4(i) of the ministerial code which states: 'Ministers must not use public resources for party political purposes;'. He went on: Nicola Sturgeon is no longer first minister, so action can no longer be taken against her under the ministerial code, but could you as Permanent Secretary confirm whether you believe this spending complied with the requirements laid out in the code, given Ms Sturgeon's recent comments? If not, will the Scottish government be taking any action to recover the public funds that were spent at the direction of Nicola Sturgeon for what were clearly party political purposes? Good heavens! Has Sturgeon landed herself in hot water over this rather revealing confession? Stay tuned…
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
EIS says 'time running out' to avert school strikes
A survey by the union found that 44% of teachers work an additional seven unpaid hours in a typical week, while more than 10% do an extra 15 hours or more. In its 2021 manifesto the SNP pledged to reduce workload by 1.5 hours per week. Read More: A ballot for industrial action, up to and including strikes, closes on August 28 and the union is urging members to vote yes. EIS General Secretary Andrea Bradley said: 'With the new term having started in most schools across Scotland, we are now in the fifth school year since the promise was made to address severe teacher workload by reducing teachers' class contact time. "Since the pledge was made, the progress towards delivery of this commitment by the Scottish Government and COSLA has been slower than glacial. "Whilst the Scottish Government has made funds available to local authorities on the joint agreement that there would be collaboration towards implementing the 21 hours commitment, no progress been made on delivery. Eight months since that agreement, we are still awaiting proposals to be put on the table as to precisely how and when this promise to teachers, pupils and the Scottish electorate will be kept. "Our current consultative ballot for industrial action is a direct result of the inaction of the Scottish Government and COSLA on this vital issue. As the years have passed since the pledge was made, workload levels in our schools have continued to soar, and the frustration felt by teachers has continued to escalate. "The latest research carried out by the EIS confirmed that Scotland's teachers are working, on average, an extra 11 hours per week, over and above their contractual commitments, in order to attempt to keep on top of workload demands. "This simply isn't sustainable, and is having a severe and detrimental impact on teachers' physical and mental wellbeing, with potentially long-term consequences for their health. 'The Scottish Government and COSLA have run out of time, after years of stalling and obfuscation. They must now produce their plan for delivery of this commitment, then they must move at a rapid pace to actually deliver it. In the meantime, I would urge every EIS member who is eligible to use their vote in our Workload ballot before it closes later this month. A very strong and very clear result in this consultative ballot will send a message that the Scottish Government and COSLA cannot ignore.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'The Scottish Government will continue to work with unions and COSLA to agree our approach to delivering a reduction in class contact time, which ultimately requires agreement from the whole Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers. 'This is also why we are providing local authorities with an additional £186.5 million to restore teacher numbers, alongside an additional £29 million to support the recruitment and retention of the ASN workforce. 'This funding has been provided on the clear agreement that meaningful progress is made on reducing teacher class contact time.' A COSLA spokesperson said: 'We are aware of the increased pressures across the whole local government workforce and the teaching profession is rightly greatly valued. As we continue to engage with teaching unions on the issue of workload, we have committed, along with Scottish Government, to exploring ways of reducing class contact time. 'The provision of high-quality learning experiences for children and young people depends on the education workforce being adequately supported, resourced, skilled and confident to respond to the learners in front of them. COSLA works closely with trade unions, Scottish Government, and partners, to enable the delivery of this. 'Reducing teachers' class contact time by 1.5 hours a week – equal to almost two weeks per year – will require additional resource, significant advance planning and actions to tackle existing problems such as recruitment and retention in rural areas and shortages of teachers of certain subject areas. "There has to be a recognition that achieving the reduction in class contact time by maintaining teacher numbers as pupil numbers gradually decline is a challenge and will take time. 'In addition, councils will have to consider how to maintain other statutory services as the proportion of the salary bill required for teachers increases.'
