MPs vote in favour of measures to decriminalise abortion in move to make biggest law change in more than 50 years
Women will no longer face prosecution for aborting their own baby for any reason and at any stage up to birth under the proposed legislation, which was backed by 379 votes to 137 on Tuesday night.
Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour MP who put forward the amendment, said it will remove the threat of 'investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy.
She told the Commons the current 'Victorian' abortion law in England and Wales is 'increasingly used against vulnerable women' and said her amendment was a 'once-in-a-generation' opportunity to change the law.
Ms Antoniazzi's amendment will be the biggest change to the law concerning women's reproductive rights since the 1967 Abortion Act.
It will alter the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act - which outlawed abortion - meaning it would no longer apply to women aborting their own babies.
MPs and pro-choice activists welcomed the abortion vote and said it will finally put an end to the prosecution of vulnerable women for ending their own pregnancies.
But anti-abortion campaigners and MPs opposed to the reforms said the move allows women to end the life of their unborn child right up to birth, and for any reason, without facing repercussions.
Under Ms Antoniazzi's amendment women will no longer be prosecuted for an abortion when it relates to their own pregnancy, even if they abort their own baby without medical approval or after the current 24-week legal limit.
However it maintains criminal punishments for doctors who carry out abortions beyond the legal limit and abusive partners who end a woman's pregnancy without her consent.
Ms Antoniazzi listed examples of women who have recently been investigated or prosecuted for having an abortion, adding: 'Just what public interest is this serving? This is not justice. It is cruelty, and it has got to end.'
'Women affected are often acutely vulnerable victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, girls under the age of 18 and women who have suffered miscarriage,' she said.
Six women have appeared in court in the last three years charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancy - a crime with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment - while others remain under investigation.
Tory MP Rebecca Paul said she was 'disturbed' by the decriminalisation amendment, which will mean that 'fully developed babies up to term could be aborted by a woman with no consequences'.
'The reason we criminalise late term abortion is not about punishment. It's about protection,' she added. 'By providing a deterrent to such actions, we protect women.
'We protect them from trying to perform an abortion at home that is unsafe for them. We protect them from coercive partners and family members who may push them to end late term pregnancies.'
Conservative MP Rebecca Smith told the Commons she the amendment risks 'creating a series of unintended consequences which could endanger women rather than protect and empower them'.
'If offences that make it illegal for a woman to administer her own abortion at any gestation were repealed, such abortions would de facto become possible up to birth for any reason, including abortions for sex selective purposes.'
Meanwhile Dr Caroline Johnson, a Tory MP and consultant paediatrician, said the proposed legislation creates a 'situation where a woman is able to legally have an abortion up until term if she wants to'.
She tabled a separate amendment that would have made it mandatory for women seeking an abortion through the at-home 'pills by post' scheme introduced during the pandemic to have an in-person consultation with a doctor before they are prescribed the drugs.
However this was rejected last night as 379 MPs voted against it - the same number who backed decriminalising abortion.
Another amendment, put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy, had also sought to repeal sections of the 1861 Act, decriminalise abortion up to 24 weeks, and ensure that late-term abortions did not result in prison sentences.
Ms Creasy's amendment would have gone go further in making it a human right for women to access abortion so that parliament could not, in future, roll back abortion rights as has happened in other countries.
However, Sir Lindsay only selected Ms Antoniazzi's to be debated by MPs this evening, which had more than 170 backers last night - compared to over 110 for Ms Creasy's.
During a Westminster Hall debate earlier this month, justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said the Government is neutral on decriminalisation and that it is an issue for Parliament to decide upon.
Though the Government took a neutral stance on the vote, several high-profile Cabinet ministers, including Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, were among the MPs who backed the amendment in the free vote.
Abortion in England and Wales currently remains a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability.
It is also legal to take prescribed medication at home if a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant.
Efforts to change the law to protect women from prosecution follow repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th-century law the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019.
The measures to decriminalise abortion, which still need to complete their legislative journey through both the Commons and the Lords before they can become law, were welcomed by leading abortion providers and physicians.
Heidi Stewart, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, BPAS, described it as a 'landmark moment for women's rights in this country'.
She said: 'There will be no more women investigated after enduring a miscarriage, no more women dragged from their hospital beds to the back of a police van, no more women separated from their children because of our archaic abortion law.'
It was welcomed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, with its president Professor Ranee Thakar describing the vote as a 'victory for women and for their essential reproductive rights'.
And the British Medical Association also welcomed the vote as a 'significant and long overdue step towards reforming antiquated abortion law'.
But Alithea Williams, from the anti-abortion campaign group the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said she was 'horrified that MPs have voted for this extreme and barbaric proposal'.
She added: 'This change has been made after only a few hours debate, with little notice. It was not in the Government's manifesto, and it certainly doesn't reflect public opinion.
'We call on the Lords to throw this undemocratic, barbaric proposal out when it reaches them. We will never accept a law that puts women in danger and removes all rights from unborn babies.'
How using medicines led to charges under 'outdated and harmful' laws
Six women have appeared in court charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancy in the past three years.
These included Nicola Packer, 45, who was cleared last month by a jury of 'unlawfully administering' herself with abortion pills at home during lockdown in 2020.
Under emergency legislation in the pandemic, which has since been made permanent, the law was changed to allow the tablets to be taken in a system known as 'pills by post'.
This let women access the medicine with no visit to a clinic up to a legal limit of ten weeks, compared to the normal limit of 24 weeks when assessed by two doctors.
Ms Packer had taken prescribed abortion medicine when she was about 26 weeks pregnant. She told a court in London she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than ten weeks.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said Ms Packer's trial demonstrated 'just how outdated and harmful' that existing abortion law was.
Another of these women is Carla Foster, 47, who was found guilty in June 2023 of illegally obtaining abortion tablets when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant.
Ms Foster, from Staffordshire, was given the pills after claiming in a remote lockdown consultation she was only seven weeks pregnant.
A court heard she had lied to a nurse on the phone about how far along she was to obtain the drugs, after searching online: 'I need to have an abortion but I'm past 24 weeks.'
She pleaded guilty to a charge under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act and got a 28-month sentence, with half to be spent in jail.
This was reduced to a 14-month suspended sentence on appeal with a judge saying the case called for 'compassion, not punishment'.
Ms Foster would not have faced prosecution under changes to laws approved last night.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
31 minutes ago
- The National
Labour rushed to help Lindsey oil refinery. So why not Grangemouth?
Here, Michelle Thomson, the SNP MSP for Falkirk East – which includes Grangemouth, writes on the Labour Government's differing approaches. LIKE many, I was alarmed to hear of the potential closure of Lindsey Oil Refinery in North Lincolnshire at the end of last month. On June 30, Prax Group, the owners of the refinery, announced they were going into administration, and therefore the future of the site was at risk. The very same day, the UK Government sprang into action. Energy Minister Michael Shanks gave a statement to the House of Commons confirming the [[UK Government]] is funding the continued operation of the refinery, adding: 'The Government will ensure supplies are maintained, protect our energy security, and do everything we can to support workers.' Energy Minister Michael ShanksNow, I welcome this, and any action to save jobs is commendable. All options should be considered to keep Lindsey operating. But as the constituency MSP for Grangemouth, I cannot help but think – while the [[UK Government]] sprang into action for the Lindsey refinery the day the news broke, where was that sense of urgency and action for [[Grangemouth]]? Yes, the circumstances are different – but over a period of months, there was nothing even close to what took place for Lindsey in a day – no urgent statement, and little to no meaningful Government intervention. READ MORE: Labour admit 'not a penny' of £200m Grangemouth rescue fund spent This isn't the first time either. Many Scots were quite rightly astounded that the UK Government very quickly spent billions to save British Steel in Scunthorpe but came nowhere close for Grangemouth. It's worth repeating that Scotland generates well over 90% of the UK's crude oil in any given year – but now has no capacity to refine it. It's also worth repeating that Labour promised to save [[Grangemouth]] before the election and failed. Indeed, the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland said: "We would step in to save the jobs at the refinery." This is the second refinery to face closure on Labour's watch, with thousands of related jobs being lost elsewhere in the supply chain. It would appear that, when it comes to industry elsewhere in the UK, Westminster can immediately pull out all the stops – but when it's in Scotland, the [[UK Government]] simply isn't interested. READ MORE: 'Unacceptable': SNP hit out as Labour 'keep Tory-era veto on Scottish laws' Some may argue that these issues are for the Scottish Government to respond to. This is correct – but any response must include the power to take financial action in the form of significant borrowing powers. These are powers that the [[Scottish Government]] lacks. The truth is, Grangemouth is just as important to Scotland's industrial output as Lindsey is to England's. It's no wonder that a growing number in Scotland quite rightly feel that Scotland is an afterthought to this – or any – UK government. It begs the question: if the UK Government can immediately step in to save major industrial sites in England – on more than one occasion – then why not in Scotland? My view is, as it always has been, that the only way to ensure Scotland's massive natural wealth is utilised for the benefit of Scotland's people is with independence for Scotland.
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Will Rachel Reeves' mortgage bombshell do more harm than good?
There's a great deal riding on Rachel Reeves' Mansion House speech tonight – more so than usual. Between the government's welfare reform plans being torn to shreds, the economy hitting a wall and public finances being mired in a sea of red ink, things haven't been great for the chancellor lately. Then there was her tearful appearance in the House of Commons a few weeks ago, blamed on a personal issue, and the lukewarm endorsement she received from Keir Starmer – which was swiftly reversed because the fiscally hawkish Reeves is seen in the City as greatly preferable to any of her possible replacements, and the markets reacted very badly when speculation about her future was at its height. Of course, she is not solely responsible for all of the above, but she does need to get back on the front foot – and her audience with City grandees is key to her success. As is typically the case with the annual event, large parts of its contents have been pushed out in advance – most notably the so-called 'Leeds reforms' which will tear up some of the post-financial crisis regulations that the City has been chafing against. At the centre of this are plans to make it easier for people to obtain bigger mortgages. The government is also launching a state-backed mortgage guarantor. The risks are obvious: do this and you could easily end up with more bad debt and more defaults when economic conditions turn against borrowers. Interest rates are on a downward path, and mortgage deals have been improving, which helps. But it won't always be that way, and unemployment is rising (thanks in part to Reeves increasing taxes on jobs). The new guarantor will also inevitably shift the burden of risk on to the taxpayer. Am I alone in having a problem with privatised profits and socialised losses? The City will always applaud deregulation, and quietly welcomed Labour's prodding the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to cool its regulatory jets and get with the programme. The Leeds reforms promise more of the same – including reform of the Financial Ombudsman, which has in recent years been functioning as a quasi-regulator. That, we are told, will end. An easing of the much hated senior managers and certification regime, another post-crisis measure, is promised. Ditto the FCA's consumer duty rules. So, too, are there are plans to boost fintech – and to ensure the Basel capital rules on banks are implemented in a way that 'supports UK competitiveness'. I suspect this means we'll find a way of cheating. A review of the ring-fencing regime – designed to protect retail banking assets (so yours and mine) from the City casino – is promised. My bet is that this will end up getting scrapped. Cross your fingers. If things go wrong again, it could get very messy. And there will be another crisis. It's in the nature of banking. City trade body UK Finance was positively gushing in response. 'We submitted a range of ideas to government to help support growth and the UK's position as a global financial centre. Across many of these key areas the chancellor has listened and delivered significant positive change,' said its CEO, David Postings. Of course he did. But here's the thing: if you take a look at the Treasury's press release, you will see that there is one very big omission. It is the one thing everyone attending tonight's shindig will want to hear about. It trumps even the most radical parts of the 'Leeds Reforms' and will ultimately be what Reeves is judged on. By now you've doubtless guessed that I'm talking about tax. Reeves has already soaked businesses by taxing jobs, with predictable results when it comes to unemployment. The City's view is that it already pays enough, contributing nearly £1 in every £10 the chancellor raises. Reeves is hoping that her reforms will spur growth, which she desperately needs. The City will tell her that it won't happen if she hits it again. That doesn't just apply to her increasing the burden on businesses. She will also be told not to hammer Britain's millionaires. With little headroom left over, her self-imposed fiscal rules and a tax-raising budget expected, Reeves has said the burden of balancing the books will fall on those whose shoulders are 'the broadest'. Most would agree that this is only fair. Many understandably find it offensive that Britain's poorest are being kicked via what remains of welfare reform while the richest employ clever accountants to cut their bills. But if she hits the uber rich too hard it turns into a zero sum game, because while some will stick around and grouse about their bills, others will just leave altogether. The result is that you don't end up raising more money – and you may, in fact, end up with less. So, how does Reeves plan to solve this problem ? I'm not sure the City will get an answer. Not yet. Reeves has made a start at re-establishing some credibility and authority, but the likely response to Mansion House will be this: 'Good start. But our verdict – and our business decisions – are on hold until the budget is in.'
Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Taxpayer could face £1bn compensation bill for Afghan leak victims
Afghans secretly relocated to the UK after a data breach are suing the Government in a compensation case that threatens to cost taxpayers almost £1 billion. A vast data breach involving the details of 18,800 soldiers, along with about 6,000 of their family members, was revealed on Tuesday after a superinjunction was lifted by the High Court, allowing The Telegraph and other national newspapers to expose the scandal. It can now be revealed that a law firm is suing the Ministry of Defence (MoD) on behalf of at least 1,000 Afghans who claim they were affected by the breach. Manchester-based Barings Law hopes to claim £50,000 from the MoD for each individual involved in the breach, sources have said. If all 18,800 soldiers make a successful claim, the compensation bill could be as high as £940 million. That sum could grow if any of the Afghan soldiers' family members join the legal claim, taking it towards £1 billion in total. Hidden from the public The breach occurred in February 2022, when a Royal Marine emailed a group of Afghans, accidentally including a spreadsheet containing the identities of nearly 25,000 Afghans – soldiers who had worked with the British Army, as well as their family members – who were applying for asylum. The leak came to light in 2023, when an anonymous Facebook user posted extracts of the data on the social media site. MoD officials contacted Meta, the company that owns Facebook, and the posts were deleted within three days. However, the Government decided it had no choice but to offer asylum to the Afghans affected because the leak had left them at risk of reprisal attacks from the Taliban. The breach has only just come to public attention after an unprecedented superinjunction was lifted by the High Court. Adnan Malik, head of data protection at Barings Law, said: 'This is an incredibly serious data breach, which the Ministry of Defence has repeatedly tried to hide from the British public. 'It involved the loss of personal and identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and support security and stability in the region. 'Through its careless handling of such sensitive information, the Ministry of Defence has put multiple lives at risk, damaged its own reputation, and put the success of future operations in jeopardy by eroding trust in its data security measures.' To date, the leak is understood to have cost £400 million to relocate victims of the leak. A further £850 million has been set aside to complete the resettlement of those affected, but it is not believed that this includes any potential compensation costs. The MoD was fined £350,000 for a very similar – but separate – data breach in 2023 that came to public light. The details of 265 Afghans were accidentally leaked two years before, in 2021, after an email was sent copying in a list of addresses in the 'to' field of the message rather than the 'bcc' field, which hides other recipients. Regulators from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) handed down the penalty in December 2023. Court papers seen by The Telegraph indicate that the ICO was made aware of the far larger Afghan data breach in 2023, but were sworn to secrecy.
