Women are *finally* no longer at risk of being prosecuted when it comes to abortion
Once passed, this will finally put a stop to the criminalisation of people who have abortions and do away with an archaic law – the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act – which was created before women even had the right to vote.
This change follows a long-running campaign by the country's leading abortion providers, BPAS and MSI, and more than thirty other organisations such as the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists and us here at Cosmopolitan UK.
In the end, 379 MPs voted in favour of passing the amendment and 137 voted against it, giving a majority of 242. The change does not come into effect immediately but ought to do so after the bill becomes a law and has received royal assent, something expected to happen given Labour's majority.
Ahead of the amendment passing, England and Wales had the world's most severe penalty for women found guilty of having an illegal abortion, carrying a maximum sentence of life in prison. Once the changes set out in the bill come into play formally, England and Wales' abortion law will be in line with that of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Northern Ireland and Ireland.
The framework through which abortion is accessed – including the 24-week time limit, the option to have a pills-by-post termination, and the requirement for two doctors to sign off on the procedure – all remain firmly in place. Sadly, this has not stopped anti-abortion groups from falsely labelling this law reform as 'advocating for abortion up until birth'.
Speaking about why the issue was important to her ahead of the vote, Antoniazzi said, "The reality is that no woman wakes up 24 weeks pregnant or more and suddenly decides to end their own pregnancy outside a hospital or clinic.
"But some women, in desperate circumstances, make choices that many of us would struggle to understand. What they need is compassion and care, not the threat of criminal prosecution."
Now, women who've experienced a late-stage miscarriage will no longer at risk of a police investigation if medical staff report them as suspicious. Nor is a woman at risk of a criminal trial, as seen in the recent Nicola Packer case, if she mistakenly calculates how far into a pregnancy she is when opting for a pills-by-post termination. Instead, she will be met with compassion rather than a years-long police investigation that upends her world and could result in a sentence of life imprisonment.
Women in vulnerable situations no longer need to fear seeking help from medics if they need it, out of fear that they could be unfairly investigated.
Louise McCudden, UK head of external affairs at MSI, said the successfully tabled amendment was 'designed to fix a very specific, urgent problem that we're seeing at the moment, which is women facing criminal investigation and prison for ending their own pregnancies'.
It also, she added, sends a positive signal to anti-abortion groups in the UK which have become louder and better-funded in recent years, and coincides with abortion providers receiving multiple requests for women's medical information from police in recent years.
'Once this reform is signed into law, no one will face invasive criminal investigations into their medical history and personal life following an unexplained pregnancy loss,' McCudden added. 'No one will face prison for ending their own pregnancy. Abortion care will continue to be provided in the same way as before. The only difference is that nobody will face criminal prosecution for ending their own pregnancy.'
Dr Charlotte Proudman, a leading barrister, women's rights advocate, and director of Right to Equality, said, 'This is a watershed moment in the legal recognition of reproductive rights in England and Wales. For the first time, Parliament has taken concrete steps to remove women and pregnant people from the scope of criminal law in relation to abortion.
'This is a fundamental shift in how the law conceptualises bodily autonomy, moving away from a punitive framework rooted in the 19th century towards a healthcare-based model. The next step must be full legal reform to ensure equitable, nationwide access to abortion care. Decriminalisation alone does not guarantee availability.'
The law will not come into effect until the Crime and Policing bill has fully made its way through Parliament and is given royal assent. There is no clear date on when this might happen at this stage.
Working across this campaign has shown us here at Cosmopolitan UK how many of you are passionate about the right to access. While this victory is huge for women's rights, there is still work to be done.
There is still a stigma surrounding abortion that impacts our relationship with it and we know that there are access issues, especially in rural areas. We will keep reporting on this topic and fighting for change, as we have done since our inception over 50 years ago.
Jennifer Savin is Cosmopolitan UK's multiple award-winning Features Editor, who was crowned Digital Journalist of the Year for her work tackling the issues most important to young women. She regularly covers breaking news, cultural trends, health, the royals and more, using her esteemed connections to access the best experts along the way. She's grilled everyone from high-profile politicians to A-list celebrities, and has sensitively interviewed hundreds of people about their real life stories. In addition to this, Jennifer is widely known for her own undercover investigations and campaign work, which includes successfully petitioning the government for change around topics like abortion rights and image-based sexual abuse. Jennifer is also a published author, documentary consultant (helping to create BBC's Deepfake Porn: Could You Be Next?) and a patron for Y.E.S. (a youth services charity). Alongside Cosmopolitan, Jennifer has written for The Times, Women's Health, ELLE and numerous other publications, appeared on podcasts, and spoken on (and hosted) panels for the Women of the World Festival, the University of Manchester and more. In her spare time, Jennifer is a big fan of lipstick, leopard print and over-ordering at dinner. Follow Jennifer on Instagram, X or LinkedIn.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Starmer faces Labour turmoil and global volatility as he marks year in Number 10
Sir Keir Starmer is facing Labour dissent, economic uncertainty and spiralling conflict abroad as he marks a year in Number 10. The Prime Minister led his party back into power with more than 400 MPs on July 4 last year – clinching a majority just short of Sir Tony Blair's landslide in 1997. But with a daunting in-tray of problems including a stuttering economy, creaking public services and global volatility, his political honeymoon period was short-lived. His personal popularity is now the lowest of any British premier after their first 12 months in office, political scientist and polling guru Professor Sir John Curtice said. 'There were pretty clear potential weaknesses before they even started, and most of those weaknesses have basically just been exposed over the course of the last 12 months,' he told the PA news agency. Sir John said part of the problem lay in what he described as a failure of narrative in setting out the Government's vision for change to the public. 'They're portraying themselves as a repair gang rather than the builders of a new Jerusalem. Pessimism doesn't necessarily go down very well,' he told PA. 'The thing with Starmer is, he's a brilliant prosecution lawyer… But prosecution lawyers present cases that have been (put together) by someone else. The problem is that as a political leader you've got to prosecute your own case. 'Maybe he needs new personnel? Either he's got to learn to do it himself or get someone in to do it for him.' That verdict was echoed by some dissenting voices within Labour ranks, where there is lingering discontent among rebels over the Government's Welfare Bill despite Number 10 offering major concessions on the legislation. The Government saw off the threat of a major Commons defeat over the legislation on Tuesday after shelving plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit in England. 'I think he really needs to think about why he wants to be a Labour Prime Minister and what is it he actually cares about,' one long-serving Labour MP said. They said Tuesday had marked 'the lowest point' in Sir Keir's premiership so far and raised questions about his authority, warning that backbenchers may now feel emboldened to demand further U-turns elsewhere. Sir John said that the Government's challenges in passing legislation were unsurprising with the broad but fragile coalition of support on which Labour built its election victory, securing 412 seats on just 35% of the vote. That means many MPs defending narrow majorities and raises the prospect of 'a large body of people who are nervous about their political futures,' he said. The Government's original welfare proposals had been part of a package that ministers expected to save up to £5 billion a year, leaving Chancellor Rachel Reeves needing to look for the money elsewhere. The fallout threatens to cause lasting damage to morale in Labour ranks, with some rebels calling for a reset in relations between the parliamentary party and the leadership before fractures widen. Images of the Chancellor crying in the Commons on Wednesday have also led to questions about her future, although a Treasury spokesman cited a 'personal matter' as the cause of her distress and Number 10 said she would remain in post. Asked whether it was time for a course correction, Downing Street has said the Prime Minister will 'plough on' with the 'very busy agenda' of Government. But the MP quoted above said: 'The idea that they can keep carrying on as they've been carrying on is suicidal. 'They have no real sense of how the party thinks and feels.' Others had a more optimistic view of the year ahead, with a Starmer loyalist who supported the Bill suggesting the upset could be salvaged with a 'measured but solid response' from the Government. 'The worst they can do is nothing,' the backbencher added. The Prime Minister used a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday to defend his record in office, telling ministers the welfare Bill was 'to help those who can work into employment and ensure dignity and security for those who can't work.' He said they could all 'rightly look back with a real sense of pride and achievement' on the last 12 months, pointing to a reduction in NHS waiting lists and a series of economic agreements struck with the US, EU and India. Abroad, the Prime Minister faces a tricky diplomatic balancing act as he seeks to strengthen ties with both Europe and Washington amid global instability from the Ukraine war and Middle East crisis. At home, Labour is staring down a threat from Nigel Farage's Reform UK party, which turned opinion poll momentum into widespread gains at the ballot box during the local elections in May. Sir John said that parties such as Reform and the Greens offer more choice to voters wanting to express their discontent with Labour while the Tories continue to flounder in the polls. 'The character of the challenge is different from what it has been historically,' he said. Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, said people had been expecting bold change on areas such as workers' rights and growth, and the Government's achievements so far were 'pretty small beer' by comparison. Critics say the first year has instead been marked by a series of U-turns, including a partial reversal of cuts to the winter fuel payment and the move to launch a national inquiry into grooming gangs after months of resisting opposition pressure to do so. The Government disputes that framing, pointing out for example that ministers had never explicitly ruled out a statutory probe into child sexual exploitation but waited for a review to be carried out before making a decision. Prof Bale said he believed the first year had gone 'worse than most people imagined' and warned 'it's difficult for a leader who starts badly to persuade people that he or she is what they need.' But he said the problems were not necessarily fatal, adding that setbacks early on in a premiership have an upside in allowing for more time to 'turn it round'. 'If you look back to Margaret Thatcher, she was able to do that, so it's not a foregone conclusion that all is lost, even for Keir Starmer himself,' he said. Arguing that the Government could recover in the polls if its plans for the economy and public services pay off, he added: 'I think you can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it's a very long tunnel.' Sir Keir has pledged to lead a 'decade of national renewal' through a phased approach to Government, the first year of which he said would involve 'cleaning up the mess' his administration had inherited. In a speech last week seeking to set the tone for the future, he said: 'We've wiped the state clean, we've stabilised the economy, and now we can go on to the next phase of government, building on that foundation.' A Government spokesperson said: 'We were elected with a commitment to deliver change and security for working people – and we are getting on with the job. 'We are delivering our Plan for Change – wages are rising faster than prices, interest rates have been cut four times, immigration has come down with 30,000 people with no right to be here removed and over four million NHS appointments have been delivered. 'Progress has been made, but we know people are impatient for change – and we are too – so we will continue to govern in the national interest for British people and deliver a decade of national renewal.'
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
MPs back foreign investors owning minority stakes in UK newspapers
Foreign investors have stepped closer to buying part of the Telegraph, as MPs backed relaxed laws on foreign ownership of UK newspapers that will allow them to own up to 15%. The Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of a change to the law by Labour which would allow foreign firms to buy minority stakes. It is the latest turn in a tumultuous two-year takeover process for the 170-year-old newspaper business. It comes after the previous Conservative government put a block in place amid fears the Telegraph could be bought by a majority-owned UAE company, RedBird IMI. The investment vehicle is a joint venture with US financiers. The regulation was approved by 338 votes to 79, majority 259. Labour was boosted in the voting lobbies by four Reform UK MPs, including its leader Nigel Farage (Clacton), and seven Independent MPs. Meanwhile former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a vocal critic of China, was among those to vote against it. The Liberal Democrats, who forced the vote over fears foreign ownership would compromise editorial independence, also opposed it. The result will give the green light to RedBird IMI, with the cap in place now being supported by MPs. RedBird Capital, the US junior partner in RedBird IMI, agreed a deal in May to buy a majority stake in the newspaper for £500 million. Abu-Dhabi's IMI will look to buy a minority stake as part of the consortium. RedBird has investments in AC Milan, film production giant Skydance and Liverpool FC owner Fenway Sports Group. It is also understood that the Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) – which owns the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, the i, and the Metro – is also looking to buy a stake. This is in addition to Sir Len Blavatnik, who owns the Theatre Royal Haymarket in the West End, who is considering a minority stake, according to Sky News reports. The rules were introduced after RedBird IMI looked to buy the Telegraph Media Group (TMG) from the Barclay Brothers. Then-Conservative culture secretary Lucy Frazer told a Society of Editors Conference in April 2024: 'I had concerns about the potential impacts of this deal on free expression and accurate presentation of news and that's why I issued a public interest intervention.' Culture minister Stephanie Peacock told MPs last month that appropriate safeguards had been introduced. She said: 'Government need to balance the importance of creating certainty and sustainability for our newspaper industry with the need to protect against the risk of foreign state influence by setting a clear threshold for exceptions within the regime at 15%. We believe that we have done that effectively.' The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been approached for comment.
Cosmopolitan
15 hours ago
- Cosmopolitan
No, Rachel Reeves crying during Prime Minister's Questions isn't the political win you think it is
Look, I'll be honest – I've cried at work before. At one of my old jobs I even had a particular cubicle in the ladies' toilets where I'd go for a silent weep before re-emerging, head down, and slinking back to my desk. Thankfully, the times I have bawled until my face was a red-streaked and swollen mess have not been caught on camera for the world to see (I am a particularly ugly and colourful crier). So I genuinely felt for Rachel Reeves, who today was spotted puffy-eyed with a single tear rolling down her cheek, while sat behind Prime Minister Keir Starmer during today's Prime Minister's Questions, the day after the controversial welfare system reforms vote. Reeves, the country's first female Chancellor, has recently been on the receiving end of criticism from colleagues, opposition parties and the public over a proposal to cut benefits and Personal Independence Payments (PIP) which help disabled people live a more independent life, as part of a much-needed benefits system overhaul. Elements of said plan is something the government has since been forced to u-turn on following backlash and the threat of a Labour rebellion. Much furore has been made of Reeves's clear upset when Starmer sidestepped a question about her future during PMQs – and it's something the financial markets have apparently picked up on, too. At around midday (when PMQ's are broadcast) the value of the pound declined sharply against the dollar (though whether that's entirely down to Reeves's tears, or more linked to the suggestion that unpopular tax rises or a new Chancellor with a whole new economical plan could be waiting in the wings, is unclear). What is clear, however, is the whiff of misogyny accompanying a lot of the commentary about Reeves online right now. There's a lot I find indefensible about this current Labour government – remember the halcyon days of last July when we actually thought change was afoot and things were going to get better? – but a politician showing emotion is not one. It's a tired and well-worn (not to mention chauvinistic) trope that women are often 'too emotional' in the workplace, and that showing any sign of upset is to be considered weak and feeble. It's a reductive take – and we don't know with certainty what has upset her (a spokesperson for the Chancellor said it was 'a personal matter' and that Reeves will be 'working out of Downing Street this afternoon', implying she has not been ousted or used as a scapegoat). Frankly, a few tears are far less embarrassing than some of the frequent, angry outbursts we see from other politicians. Donald Trump, for instance, regularly takes to his own social media platform, Truth Social, to get involved in spats with whoever has irked him that day, using language akin to an angry eight-year-old who has been told he's had enough screentime for the day, labelling former colleagues as 'losers' or any vaguely unflattering (and oftentimes honest) commentary about himself as 'fake news'. Or take his Vice President, JD Vance, and his petulant outburst against Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House earlier this year, during which he berated a man whose country is at war for his lack of wearing a suit. These are treated as popcorn-worthy entertainment, meme-ified and held up as the embodiment of 'power' and strongman politics – when really, it's just a tantrum for all to see. Somehow, though, I reckon Reeves will be judged more harshly. I'm not saying crying at work is necessarily a good thing – if you find yourself dissolving into tears frequently and publicly, maybe it's time to accept that perhaps the job isn't for you. But what I am saying is, sure, there's plenty to attack Reeves over politically (seriously, those welfare reform plans and the threat to remove PIP payments were a mess) – but visibly showing emotion should not be one of them. If the markets are affected by a woman crying, then it's the markets that need to get a grip, not Rachel Reeves. Kimberley Bond is a Multiplatform Writer for Harper's Bazaar, focusing on the arts, culture, careers and lifestyle. She previously worked as a Features Writer for Cosmopolitan UK, and has bylines at The Telegraph, The Independent and British Vogue among countless others.
