U.K. 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.
By Brian Melley And Danica Kirka
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
4 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Report finds judges' $414,900 salary 'inadequate' to attract top talent, recommends $28,000 raise
OTTAWA — The commission tasked with reviewing judicial compensation says that $414,900 per year isn't enough to keep the bench attractive to top applicants and recommends the government increase judges' salaries by at least $28,000. 'The current salary and benefits paid to judges are inadequate,' reads a report by the commission reviewing federally appointed judges' compensation that was tabled in the House of Commons Wednesday. 'An increase to the judicial salary is required to ensure outstanding candidates continue to be attracted to the judiciary.' Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. The report recommends boosting judges' salaries by $28,000 for regular provincial superior and appellate courts as well as federal courts, $30,000 for chief justices and $36,000 for the chief justice of the Supreme Court, all retroactive to April 2024. Most federally appointed judges currently make $414,900 (except members of the Supreme Court who make $494,100) and chief justices earn about $40,000 more. Their salaries are indexed annually following the industrial aggregate, which generally exceeds the Consumer Price Index. The commission also recommends increasing the salary of associate judges from 80 per cent to 95 per cent of a regular federally appointed justice. The report was sent in July to Justice Minister Sean Fraser, who has four months to decide how he will respond to the recommendations impacting over 1,200 judges. The suggested raise would cost the government over $34 million. The decision is far from simple for Fraser as Prime Minister Mark Carney looks to cut the federal government's salary and operating costs. Carney has asked each department to cut their budget by 15 per cent in the next few years amid growing concern over government spending. In a statement, Fraser's spokesperson, Jeremy Bellefeuille, said the minister was reviewing the report and would respond in due time. The commission's report focuses on a single issue at the centre of a months-long battle between the government and the judiciary: is judges' annual compensation enough to keep attracting top legal applicants to provincial and federal courts? As National Post reported in July , judges' associations argued magistrates needed a $60,000 raise retroactive to April 2024 to maintain the appeal of a job that is increasingly struggling to attract 'outstanding candidates.' The federal government countered that judges' salary and benefits — including 'one of the best retirement plans in Canada' — did not require a $60,000 'bonus' to keep the job attractive. Ultimately, the commission's conclusion fell squarely in the middle. Whereas it agreed with judges that the salary is too low to continue attracting top applicants in the long run, it also found that $60,000 was too much. 'The Commission agrees with the Judiciary that the significant gap between judicial salaries and the private sector comparator warrants an increase to the current judicial salary; however, we do not agree with the amount of the increase proposed by the Judiciary,' reads the report. 'Our recommendation is intended to be fair to the judiciary and to the taxpayer, to strike the right balance between the two, and to be in the public interest.' The key concern highlighted by both judges' associations and the commission's report is that too few 'highly qualified' private-sector lawyers are applying to become judges. That could ultimately lead to a dearth of necessary skills and expertise on the bench in the long term, concluded the three-member Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission chaired by lawyer and businesswoman Anne Giardini. The diminishing interest also means vacant positions will be harder and take longer to fill, risking another 'crisis' like one in 2023 when the judicial vacancy rate sat at nearly 10 per cent. 'While a shortage has been averted for now, the pressures of rising private sector incomes are such that the ability to maintain an adequate level of private sector appointments to fill judicial vacancies is of ongoing concern. We are persuaded that the effects of past shortages are continuing to rebound within the justice system,' reads the report. 'So while the pool of individuals in the last 4-year period was more than adequate to fill all the positions, we see clear warning signs that salaries are going to be a factor leading to highly qualified private sector lawyers electing not to apply to the judiciary.' The commission said it was particularly swayed by comments by Ontario Superior Court Chief Justice Geoffrey Morawetz detailing his struggle in convincing private sector lawyers to join the court. 'An increasing number of qualified private practitioners no longer view a judicial appointment, considering its attendant responsibilities and benefits, as attractive in light of the resulting significant reduction in income,' Morawetz wrote in an affidavit to the commission. National Post cnardi@ Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here .
CBC
5 hours ago
- CBC
Poilievre holds news conference in Surrey following Alberta byelection win
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was in Surrey today and this comes after he won the Alberta byelection that will return him to the House of Commons. Our Yasmine Ghania tells us about the significance of the location of the announcement.
CBC
6 hours ago
- CBC
Pierre Poilievre holds a press conference in Surrey, B.C. after winning Alberta byelection
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre held a press conference about crime in Surrey, B.C. after a projected win in the Battle River-Crowfoot byelection, which would see him returning to the House of Commons this fall. He was there to launch the party's criminal action plan.
