logo
SARAH VINE: If the Left had wanted to provoke a pro-life movement like in the US, then this vote was a great start

SARAH VINE: If the Left had wanted to provoke a pro-life movement like in the US, then this vote was a great start

Daily Mail​18-06-2025
Yesterday in the House of Commons Parliament voted by 379 votes to 137 to decriminalise abortion up to and including full term.
There are no two ways about it. Our elected representatives, the people charged with safeguarding the interests of every man, woman and child in this country, have just voted for the state-sanctioned killing of foetuses that would be entirely viable if they were allowed to be born. To my mind, it is, quite frankly, morally indefensible.
I am by no means anti-abortion. I understand that there are situations where the death of a foetus cannot be avoided, or where a termination is necessary. I have no issue with the morning-after pill being readily available, either.
Women have a right to autonomy over their bodies. But like all these things, there are limits – moral and medical.
For the most part, babies are not viable outside the womb much before 24 weeks, but after that they can and do survive.
The current legislation around abortion reflects that. It's not a perfect cut-off point – there will always be exceptions – but it's probably the least bad option. In any case, very few women opt for abortion at this stage, not least because it involves full labour and delivering a stillborn baby.
But now, thanks to Tonia Antoniazzi, Stella Creasy (who wants to go even further, and fully indemnify the partners and medics involved from threat of prosecution) and the powerful abortion lobby, you can theoretically kill a nine-month-old foetus – provided it's still in the womb.
This is precisely the sort of insanity that gives feminism a bad name. Because, of course, the whole issue has been re-framed as a question of 'women's rights', which it is most emphatically not. It's a human rights issue: the right of one human to life – versus another's right to take it without fear of repercussion.
The irony is that part of the reason this is happening is not because abortion is hard to come by in Britain – but because it's become so much easier.
Thanks to measures introduced during Covid, women can now obtain at-home abortion pills over the phone, without the need for a face-to-face consultation, and with no requirement for them to be administered under medical supervision.
These pills are only safe and legal up to ten weeks of pregnancy (which is when the vast majority of terminations take place); but the system is open to abuse.
Before the need for face-to-face appointments was abolished, there were just three prosecutions of women for illegal abortions in a period of 160 years; since the new system was introduced, there have been six.
One of them was the case of Nicola Packer, 45, who last month was cleared of 'unlawfully administering herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the 'intent to procure a miscarriage' at around 26 weeks. Packer's supporters have cast her as a victim, which maybe she is.
In court, her defence claimed that she was heavily traumatised by the experience of being arrested and prosecuted. But is that really a reason to declare open season on unborn babies?
I could perhaps understand some part of this were there still any degree of stigma surrounding unmarried mothers. But this is not 1925. No one cares any more if a woman has a baby on her own. There's no shame or embarrassment in it, no one is going to force anyone to go to live with evil nuns.
And besides, why not just take the baby to term and give it up for adoption? There are plenty of childless couples desperate for a newborn who would be only too grateful.
Adoption in this country is complicated and mired in red tape. Why doesn't Parliament vote to resolve that problem instead?
But also, on a more personal level, why let it get to that stage? These days you can tell if you're pregnant almost immediately after having sex. If you don't want to be, there are many easy ways of remedying that situation before mitosis (cell division) has even begun. Is that so hard?
One thing's for certain. If the Left want to provoke a hardline pro-life movement of the kind that exists in the US, yesterday's vote was an excellent start.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Gerry Adams: BBC libel damages donated to 'good causes'
Gerry Adams: BBC libel damages donated to 'good causes'

BBC News

time26 minutes ago

  • BBC News

Gerry Adams: BBC libel damages donated to 'good causes'

Gerry Adams has donated the €100,000 (£84,000) he won in a libel case against the BBC to "good causes".The former Sinn Féin leader sued the corporation over a 2016 BBC NI Spotlight programme and online article about the murder of British agent Denis May, a jury found the 76-year-old had been defamed when it was alleged by an anonymous contributor that he sanctioned the 2006 Tuesday, solicitors for Mr Adams confirmed that donations had been made to causes which include Gaza and the Irish language sector. After the BBC announced it would not be appealing the verdict in June, Mr Adams said the damages would be Solicitors, which represented Mr Adams in the case, said the BBC discharged the order of the court in relation to the compensation to their firm said donations had been made to a number of groups, including Unicef for the children of Gaza, a local GAA organisation, a support group for republican prisoners and families called An Cumman Cabhrach, the Irish language sector, and homeless and Belfast-based youth, mental health and suicide prevention projects.

Labour MP Kate Osborne faces inquiry by Commons expenses watchdog
Labour MP Kate Osborne faces inquiry by Commons expenses watchdog

The Independent

time26 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Labour MP Kate Osborne faces inquiry by Commons expenses watchdog

Parliament's expenses watchdog has opened an investigation into Labour MP Kate Osborne. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said it had opened an investigation into whether the Jarrow and Gateshead East MP had breached spending rules. Announcing the investigation on Tuesday, Ipsa said the investigation related to spending on travel and subsistence costs and 'miscellaneous costs and financial assistance'. It added: 'No further information will be published until the investigation has concluded.' Ms Osborne, 59, has been an MP since 2019 and was re-elected last year with a majority of 8,964. She is the second Labour MP to be investigated by Ipsa this year, after the watchdog opened an inquiry into spending by Tahir Ali in May. Mr Ali, the MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, faces an investigation into spending on 'office costs, travel and accommodation'. Ms Osborne has been contacted for comment.

Asylum seekers to be removed from Essex hotel as council granted injunction
Asylum seekers to be removed from Essex hotel as council granted injunction

The Independent

time26 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Asylum seekers to be removed from Essex hotel as council granted injunction

Asylum seekers will be removed from an Essex hotel after a council was granted a temporary High Court injunction blocking them from being housed there. Epping Forest District Council had asked a judge to issue an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping. The injunction sought by the council meant the hotel's owner, Somani Hotels Limited, would have had to stop housing asylum seekers there within 14 days. The hotel has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary injunction, but extended the time limit by which the hotel must stop housing asylum seekers to September 12. He also refused to give Somani Hotels the green light to challenge his ruling, but the company could still ask the Court of Appeal for the go-ahead to appeal against the judgment. In his judgment, he said that while the council had not 'definitively established' that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, 'the strength of the claimant's case is such that it weighs in favour' of granting the injunction. He continued that the 'risk of injustice is greater' if a temporary injunction was not granted. A further hearing on whether the injunction should be made permanent is expected to be held at a later date, and is expected to last two days. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since a then-resident at the hotel was accused of trying to kiss a teenage girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month. A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over disorder outside the hotel. The council said last week it was seeking an injunction due to 'unprecedented levels of protest and disruption' in connection with asylum seeker accommodation. Chris Whitbread, leader of the council, said the situation 'cannot go on' but the Government 'is not listening'. At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council said that the site's 'sole lawful use' was as a hotel and that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using it to house asylum seekers. Philip Coppel KC, for the authority, said the situation was 'wholly unacceptable' and provided a 'feeding ground for unrest'. He said: 'There has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of the Bell Hotel to place asylum seekers.' Mr Coppel continued: 'It is not the asylum seekers who are acting unlawfully. It is the defendant, by allowing the hotel to be used to house asylum seekers.' He added: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said that 'disagreement with Government policy' did not justify a 'draconian' injunction and that there would be 'hardship' caused to the company and those housed at the hotel. He also said that contracts to house asylum seekers were a 'financial lifeline' for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. Mr Riley-Smith said: 'It is clear that recent protests have expanded far beyond the local community and have gone into concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community. 'Those particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning.' Following the ruling, Mr Whitbread said: 'I am delighted. This is great news for our residents. The last few weeks have placed an intolerable strain on our community but today we have some great news.' He continued: 'Home Office policy ignores the issues and concerns of local residents that the council represents. 'Today we have made a step towards redressing the imbalance and showing that local people do have some say, whatever the Home Office thinks.' Before judgment was handed down on Tuesday, barristers for the Home Office asked to intervene in the case, citing the 'substantial impact' caused to the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, in performing her legal duties to asylum seekers. Edward Brown KC, for the department, told the court that moving asylum seekers in 'extremely short order' would cause a 'very significant operational burden' and 'particular acute difficulties' for the Government. But Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the Home Office's bid, stating that the department's involvement was 'not necessary'.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store