Westminster is set to decriminalise abortion - what about Scotland?
Abortion is still a crime in Scotland, England and Wales, under legislation which was passed in 1967.
But in the Commons this week, an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill will remove the threat of 'investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy.
It comes after several high-profile cases where women have been arrested for illegal abortion offences.
In Scotland, while the same 1960s legislation applies, and sets a number of limitations on the circumstances that allow an abortion can be granted, campaigners have said there is less 'urgency' for decriminalisation to be brought in north of the border.
READ MORE: Holyrood governing body defends 'unfair' trans toilet ban
Rachel Clarke, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), explained: 'In England and Wales we've got underlying statute dating to the 1800s which is being used against women on a sort of semi-regular basis.
'More than 100 women have been investigated in recent years, six have ended up in court. There are also quite a few of those women who are still in the system awaiting a decision from prosecutors on whether their case is going to be taken to court.
'So for us, that change is very urgent and essential.'
In one instance, Nicola Packer was taken to a police cell from hospital after delivering a still born baby at home. She had taken prescribed abortion medication at around 26 weeks pregnant, later telling jurors that she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than 10 weeks.
The Westminster legislation, while decriminalising women, does not change the law relating to the provision of abortion services - such as the requirement to be approved by two doctors.
Clarke explained that there hadn't been the same levels of criminalisation in Scotland, mostly due to the existence of common law that isn't 'used against women in the same way' as the Westminster statute.
'Because Scotland doesn't have that urgent problem, the work that we've been doing up there and that Back Off Scotland has been doing up there, has been about trying to do wholesale reform of the law as the first thing,' Clarke explained.
'To deal with the issues that we've got, but also to support some of the work that's going on around improved access, particularly at later gestations.'
'The most urgent thing in Scotland at the moment is the lack of services post 20 weeks.'
READ MORE: Israel accused of 'hypocrisy' after calling hospital strike 'war crime'
Abortions are permitted until 24 weeks under the current law, but if a woman in Scotland requires one after 20 weeks, they have to travel to England for specialist care.
The Scottish Greens have recently called for abortion to be decriminalised in Scotland, but with the clock counting down to the Holyrood elections in 2026, there is little time on the parliamentary agenda to get legislation scrutinised and passed.
The power to update the law on abortion was devolved to the Scottish Parliament in 2016. There has been ample time to tackle the issue.
In January, Scottish Labour MSP Carol Mochan asked the Scottish Government when it plans to review the current legal framework on abortion.
Women's health minister Jenni Minto pointed to a commitment made by Scottish Government ministers in the 2023 programme for government to review the law.
An expert group is due to send a report to ministers in the summer, but she notes that 'proposals for changes to abortion law would be subject to a public consultation'.
With the topic of abortion likely to spark a heated debate, it will undoubtedly be a lengthy, contentious process, whatever the expert group suggests.
It is clear that the current law is outdated and crying out for reform - but with the aforementioned tight deadline for Holyrood legislation, it could be a long time until Scotland modernises the law on abortion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Labour whip resigns over government's proposed welfare cuts
Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft has resigned as a government whip over the party's welfare proposals, saying that she could not vote 'for reforms which include cuts to disabled people's finances'. In a letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, the MP for Lewisham North said: "I absolutely understand the need to address the ever-increasing welfare bill in these difficult economic times. "But I have always believed this could and should be done by supporting more disabled people into work. "I do not believe that cuts to personal independence payment (PIP) and the health element of Universal Credit should be part of the solution." Foxcroft said it had been an 'honour' to serve in the government and had "wrestled" over whether to "resign or remain in the government and fight for change from within". "Sadly it is now seems that we are not going to get the changes I desperately wanted to see," she added.'I therefore tender my resignation as I know I will not be able to do the job that is required of me and whip – or indeed vote – for reforms which include cuts to disabled people's finances." Former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, who lost the Labour whip last year, posted on X: 'Vicky Foxcroft worked really hard as the shadow minister for the disabled & as a result will have a thorough understanding of the implications of the benefit cuts on disabled people. I fully respect her for the decision she has taken.' Starmer has faced a backlash from some Labour MPs over proposals to reform the welfare system, expected to save up to £5 billion a year. The government's proposals – aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work – are set to include the tightening of criteria for personal independence payment (Pip), which is the main disability benefit. They also include a cut to the sickness-related element of universal credit (UC) and delayed access to only those aged 22 and over. Ministers are likely to face a Commons stand-off with backbench Labour MPs over their plans, with dozens of them last month saying the proposals were 'impossible to support'. The legislation, known as the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, was formally introduced to the Commons on Wednesday. MPs will debate a second reading of the bill on July 1.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Assisted dying: Why this momentous vote – with such far-reaching consequences
The third reading and final Commons vote on Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday marks a truly historic moment for parliament. The stakes are so high that entrepreneur Declan Ganley has offered a private ambulance to MP Sorcha Eastwood, who is ill with Covid, to get her to the Commons to vote against the Bill. No wonder. It has been almost six decades since MPs have considered a Bill that would cause such a profound and fundamental change in the state's relationship with individuals and society's attitude to life and death. An historic vote In December Ms Leadbeater won a 55 majority on the second reading vote of her Bill, dealing with the principle rather than details, and is expected to carry a reduced majority today, although that is less certain than it was before. If she is successful then the state, for the first time, will be licensed to end people's lives if they wish it and if the circumstances allow. Doctors will be allowed to offer it as an alternative to people who have been given six months left to live. What factors will MPs be considering? The lack of certainty on the vote is partly fueled by the fact that a number of MPs who voted for the principle made it clear that they were allowing the debate to be had and would reserve judgment on the final vote. The debate in fact has moved on from one of principle - which only a minority oppose - to one of practicalities. The questions faced by MPs include: Can such a law be introduced to allow those with genuine terminal illnesses who wish to end their lives to do so without exposing the weak, poor and vulnerable to coercion to end their lives? Can the so-called tight restrictions be prevented from expanding beyond that through medical practice, judicial intervention or further legislation? Will this end up being a means for saving costs on the care centre and the NHS? Are the safeguards strong enough to ensure that the new law will not be abused? MPs changing their minds The reason that the vote has become tighter is because a growing number of MPs are concerned about the potential answers to those questions. The only issue will be whether that is enough to block the Bill. Based on votes on the amendments as well as known supporters and opponents, the predictive voting model used by opponents of assisted dying gives Ms Leadbeater a majority of up to 15, ranging to a defeat of the Bill by a majority of five. Very close. Key to the debate will not be the heartbreaking stories of people suffering in their final months, or celebrity voices like Esther Rantzen. They have already had their effect. More important will be the big change to the Bill brought by Ms Leadbeater which means a judge in court will not have to sign off, as originally laid out in the second reading vote. Instead, there will be an expert panel led by a judge or KC but not with the same legal authority. It is worth noting that the judicial safeguard was cited by more than 100 MPs in the first debate. The 'slippery slope' argument The other issue at play will be whether this Bill is a full stop to the issue or is something that will unleash a loosening up of the law over time. The lesson from the then Liberal MP David Steel's abortion legislation in 1967 will play a part in the decision-making of a number of MPs, who will be considering the so-called 'slippery slope' issue of an apparently tightly worded piece of legislation expanding its reach over time. Just this week we have seen MPs vote by a large majority to decriminalise abortion – effectively allowing it up to birth without criminal consequences from the 24 weeks (six months) already legislated for. But more important will be the experience of other countries where assisted dying has been legalised. Ms Leadbeater has been at pains that this is a specifically British Bill. However, in Canada, Oregon in the US, the Netherlands, and New South Wales in Australia the legislation has expanded beyond terminal illness to include mental health and other issues. Ms Leadbeater in fact highlighted a case of a couple who decided to end their own lives in Australia after 70 years of marriage even though terminal illness was not a factor. How the debate will unfold She will argue on Friday though that her Bill has been strengthened since November. Opponents will point out that she has rejected safeguards on eating disorders, mental health, the requirement of people actually suffering pain and many other apparently reasonable checks to the process. She had also opposed an amendment preventing doctors recommending assisted dying to children, the one defeat she has suffered so far. Many have consistently argued that a private members bill is not sufficient to debate something that will have such a profound effect on the country. Indeed, 52 Labour MPs asked Keir Starmer, a supporter of assisted dying, to give more time for further scrutiny, an appeal he rejected. The issue today will be whether all these questions and issues will mean there are enough MPs to have second thoughts from their vote in November to overturn a 55-majority. If the Bill is defeated then it will not come back before the next election, if Ms Leadbeater wins then it will have cleared its most important hurdle and a battle in the Lords awaits where many of the issues will be debated again.
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Assisted dying vote ‘too close to call' as MPs turn against bill
Advocates of assisted dying believe their bill will pass its final Commons vote on Friday, despite a shift among MPs against it. Opponents said that the last chance to block a change in the law was too close to call, with turnout likely to decide the outcome. Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, warned that defeat for the bill would end hopes of changing the law for another decade as she rejected claims of rushing through reform. Only five amendments from MPs opposed to the bill will be put to a vote before the Commons decides whether to approve the bill in its third reading. Critics said this left key problems unaddressed and have unsuccessfully pleaded for more time.
