MPs Fight Hard Against UK Measure for Abortions Up to Birth

Peers will vote tomorrow (Wednesday 18 March) on two landmark amendments brought forward by a group of pro-choice and pro-life female Peers who have come together to overturn the controversial ‘abortion up to birth’ clause (clause 208) in the Bill and reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional prior to an abortion taking place at home.

Clause 208 was introduced by Tonia Antoniazzi MP in the Commons last summer after just 46 minutes of backbench debate – there was no prior consultation with the public, no Committee Stage scrutiny and no evidence sessions.

Shortly before MPs voted on the abortion up to birth proposals, The Times reported the opposition of Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and the unease of Health Secretary Wes Streeting with the proposals (see further details in the section below).

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

Clause 208 would change the law so it would no longer be illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, and at any point up to and during birth, likely leading to a significant increase in the number of women performing dangerous late-term abortions at home.

Two amendments have been tabled in response to the clause at Report Stage by Peers who are concerned about its consequences:

• Amendment 424, tabled by Baroness (Rosa) Monckton would remove clause 208 from the Crime and Policing Bill. Baroness Monckton, the close friend and confidante of Princess Diana, is the Founder and Chair of Team Domenica, a charity supporting young people with learning disabilities and autism.
• Amendment 425, tabled by Baroness (Philippa) Stroud would protect women by reinstating in-person consultations with a medical professional before abortion pills can be prescribed. Baroness Stroud is the Chair of the Low Pay Commission and co-founder of the Centre for Social Justice.

The amendments are being supported and have been co-signed by a diverse and cross-party group of respected and experienced female Peers, that includes, in addition to Baronesses Monckton & Stroud:

• Baroness (Sheila) Hollins, Crossbench peer and the former President of the British Medical Association & President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – signed Amendment 424
• Baroness (Amanda) Spielman, the former Head of OFTSED – signed Amendment 424
• Baroness (Kishwer) Falkner, the former Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission – signed Amendment 425
• Baroness (Sharron) Davies, former Olympic medal-winning swimmer, women’s rights campaigner and new Conservative peer – signed Amendment 425
• Baroness (Frances) D’Souza, former Lord Speaker in the House of Lords – signed Amendment 425
• Baroness (Julie) Smith, leading Cambridge academic (Professor of European Politics) and Liberal Democrat Peer – signed Amendment 424

In addition to the amendment sponsors listed above (N.B. Lords amendments can only be signed by four Peers), the two amendments are being supported by other prominent Peers, including:

• Baroness (Margaret) Ritchie, Labour peer and former leader of the SDLP
• Lord (David) Alton, Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights
• Baroness (Arlene) Foster, Former Northern Ireland First Minister
• Baroness (Therese) Coffey, Former Deputy Prime Minister & Health Secretary
• Lord (David) Frost, Former Conservative Cabinet minister
• Baroness (Kate) Hoey, Former Labour minister

Peers with expertise in policing and the criminal law have also raised questions about the rationale behind and likely consequences of clause 208. Supporters of clause 208 claim the proposed law change would prevent women in traumatic circumstances sometimes being investigated after losing a baby in pregnancy. However:

• Raising questions about clause 208 at Committee stages in the House of Lords, former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Hogan-Howe pointed out that police investigations would sometimes still need to take place if a baby died late in pregnancy away from a clinical context, regardless of whether clause 208 passes, as police would need to ascertain whether a crime (e.g. infanticide) had been committed or if there had been abuse or coercion at the hands of a third party.
• Baroness Butler-Sloss, former Lord Justice of Appeal and President of the Family Division of the High Court, labelled clause 208 at Committee Stage as an “extraordinary proposal”, that attempted “to pass a law that would actually protect the guilty” in order to prevent such investigations.

This follows the Committee Stage of the Crime and Policing Bill, where a large number of Peers spoke in opposition to the abortion up to birth clause and in support of reinstating in-person consultations, as proposed by Baroness Stroud’s amendment.

An analysis of speeches at Committee Stage completed by Right To Life UK’s Policy Team found that of the 29 speakers who made speeches and took a stance, 21 (72%) spoke against changing the law so it would no longer be illegal for women to perform their own abortions right through to birth, while 8 (28%) spoke in favour of it. This represents more than double the number of Peers who spoke in opposition to the abortion up to birth clause compared with those who supported it.

Consideration of these amendments comes as new figures showed a record of almost 300,000 abortions took place across the United Kingdom in 2023.

Opposition from significant Commons figures

After the amendment passed last summer, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch whipped her MPs to vote against the entire Crime and Policing Bill at Third Reading on the basis of the inclusion of the abortion up to birth amendment.

It is understood that leading Conservatives in the House of Lords share Kemi Badenoch’s views.

Shortly before MPs voted on the abortion up to birth proposals last summer, The Times reported the opposition of Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and the unease of Health Secretary Wes Streeting with the proposals.

Mahmood was Justice Secretary at the time but is now Home Secretary and would have to oversee the implementation of clause 208 should it pass, since the Crime and Policing Bill is a Home Office bill.

It would be unusual for Parliament to pass a Bill that includes a clause opposed by the Cabinet Minister whose department is sponsoring the Bill. The Times highlighted Mahmood’s concerns over the pills by post scheme in particular, which Baroness Stroud’s amendment would address.

As Health Secretary, Wes Streeting is responsible for overseeing abortion practice, including the pills by post scheme.

Labour House of Lords minister, Lord Hanson, has already confirmed that the Government is neutral on clause 208 and his party will offer a free vote when the amendments are debated.

The next U-turn?

The House of Lords is set to vote on the abortion up to birth proposals after a year of embarrassing forced U-turns on Labour policies, including winter fuel payments, the two-child benefit cap, the grooming gangs inquiry, welfare cuts, digital ID, inheritance tax for farmers, local elections postponements and the Chagos deal. The assisted suicide Bill, sponsored by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and Labour peer Lord Falconer is also in trouble.

The abortion up to birth clause, while not a Government policy, passed on the basis of Labour votes, was tabled in the House of Commons by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi and is a long-term goal of DWP minister Diana Johnson (a Home Office minister at the time the clause passed in the Commons) who tabled a near-identical amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill in 2024.

There is now every chance these proposals could turn into the latest Labour U-turn/defeat.

House of Commons unlikely to overturn Lords defeat

If Peers succeed in defeating clause 208, it is unlikely the clause would return at ‘ping pong’ in the House of Commons. This is because:

The current Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, opposes the clause (Yvette Cooper was Home Secretary when the clause passed in the Commons).

The Crime and Policing Bill is a flagship Government Bill that is in danger of running out of time before the session ends, with possibly as little as three weeks of parliamentary time left after the vote for the Bill to complete its Third Reading in the Lords and go through ping pong, alongside other legislation.

The Government would not want its Bill held up by a controversial backbench amendment that paints Labour as the party of extreme social issues.

Clause 208 was tabled as a backbench amendment. Backbench amendments rarely get selected for debate at ping pong.

Abortion up to birth was not in the Government’s manifesto and was a backbench rather than Government amendment.

This means Peers concerned about the clause would not have the same obligations to yield to the Commons should the Commons pass the clause a second time, as the Lords would for other parts of the Bill, bringing the whole Bill into doubt (note the Conservatives voting against the whole Bill in the Commons because of the abortion amendment). The Government would have very strong reasons to ensure the amendment did not come back at ping pong.

Amendment to overturn abortion up to birth clause

Amendment 424, that Baroness Monckton has tabled at Report Stage, along with other female Members of the House of Lords, would remove clause 208 from the Crime and Policing Bill.

Polling shows that 89% of the general population and 91% of women agree that gender-selective abortion should be explicitly banned by the law – and only 1% of women support introducing abortion up to birth.

Another poll shows that more than half of the general public agree that it should remain the case that a woman is breaking the law if she has an abortion of a healthy baby after the current 24-week legal time limit up until birth. Only 16% disagreed.

The introduction of the clause to the Crime and Policing Bill caused a major backlash, which included 91% of 28,000 respondents to a poll run by The Telegraph saying they were opposed to the extreme law change that would be introduced by clause 208.

Additional information on this amendment is available below this press release.

Amendment to reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional prior to an abortion taking place at home

Amendment 425, tabled by Baroness (Philippa) Stroud, along with other female Peers, would protect women by reinstating in-person consultations with a medical professional before abortion pills can be prescribed. Baroness Stroud is the Chair of the Low Pay Commission and co-founder of the Centre for Social Justice.

Polling shows widespread public support for the law change that is proposed by Baroness Stroud’s amendment, with two-thirds of women supporting the reinstatement of in-person appointments and only 4% in favour of the status quo.

Baroness Stroud previously warned of the dangers of allowing at-home abortions before the policy was made permanent in March 2022 – many of those dangers have, sadly, since occurred.

Additional information on this amendment is available at the end of this press release.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said:

“The abortion up to birth clause is one of the most extreme pieces of legislation ever to pass the House of Commons. Pro-abortion MPs hijacked a government Bill to rush through this radical and seismic change to our abortion laws after just 46 minutes of backbench debate”.

“This was the first time this extreme amendment had been debated in Parliament, and there has been no public consultation on this far-reaching change to our laws. The backlash afterwards demonstrated how out of step these proposals are with public opinion”.

“If this proposal becomes law, it would be the most significant change to abortion legislation since the Abortion Act was introduced in 1967”.

“The law change would likely lead to the lives of many more women being endangered because of the risks involved with self-administered late-term abortions and also tragically lead to an increased number of viable babies’ lives being ended well beyond the 24-week abortion time limit and beyond the point at which they would be able to survive outside the womb”.

“The abortion lobby is pushing to decriminalise abortion to cover up the disastrous effects of its irresponsible pills by post scheme, which endangers women by removing the requirement for in-person consultations before abortion pills may be prescribed”.

“The solution is clear. We should urgently reinstate in-person appointments. This simple safeguard would help prevent women’s lives from being put at risk from self-administered late-term abortions, a danger that would be exacerbated if abortion were ‘decriminalised’ right up to birth”.

“The House of Lords now has the opportunity to put things right. Rather than allowing abortion providers to cover up the disastrous consequences of the pills by post scheme for which they lobbied, Peers can protect both women and viable babies by supporting the amendments tabled by Baroness Monckton and Baroness Stroud.”

Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest MBE said:

“If passed in its current form, the Crime and Policing Bill would change the law so it would no longer be illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason and at any stage, right up to birth”.

“This is an extreme social change for which there is no public pressure or demand, and could have tragic consequences for women, as well as leading to increased numbers of abortions of viable babies.”

“This radical clause was added to the Bill after less than an hour of debate by MPs, and without the necessary scrutiny required for an issue of such seriousness. Whatever one’s views on abortion, this is not how responsible laws are made”.

“A large number of Peers have indicated that they will support my amendment to remove Clause 208 and join me in supporting Baroness Stroud’s amendment to require an in-person consultation before abortion pills are taken at home, so that gestation, health risks and any coercion risks can be properly assessed”.

Baroness Stroud said:

“Supporters of decriminalising abortion up to birth cite a small number of prosecutions of women for illegal late-term abortions in recent years”.

“The increase in such cases is a direct result of the ‘pills by post’ scheme, whereby women can receive abortion pills without an in-person consultation to verify their gestational age is within the legal limit”.

“The solution to such cases is not to make matters worse by removing the legal deterrent against women performing their own at-home abortions up to birth, which would likely endanger women further, but to reinstate in-person consultations”.

“I, and many others, warned of the dangers of the ‘pills by post’ scheme when it was introduced. Sadly, those warnings have come true. My amendment would ensure medical professionals can accurately assess a woman’s gestational age, any health risks and the risk of coercion before abortion pills are prescribed”.

“This change has widespread public support and would better protect women by helping prevent further cases of coerced or dangerous late-term abortions linked to the ‘pills by post’ scheme”.

LifeNews Note: Republished with permission from Right to Life UK.

The post MPs Fight Hard Against UK Measure for Abortions Up to Birth appeared first on LifeNews.com.