
Why it's never been more important to decriminalise abortion
When I scrambled out of my bathroom on all fours after an abortion in January 2022, I was paralysed by the pain.
Fast forward to five months later and again I found myself frozen with pain in the same flat in south London. However, this time round the anguish wasn't physical; instead, it was provoked by news the Supreme Court had overturned Roe v Wade – the landmark decision that legalised abortion nationwide in the US in 1973 – and millions of women had lost their legal right to have a pregnancy terminated. Life has changed immeasurably in America since this seismic decision.
Yet the shift has invariably had an impact across the pond, too; with anti-abortion ideologues growing further emboldened and better funded here in Britain. That's why it's never been more important to decriminalise abortion – now.
And now, Labour MPs Stella Creasy and Tonia Antoniazzi have both tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill which would seek to decriminalise pregnancy terminations without 'changing anything about provision of abortion care'. It comes after the UK's largest abortion services estimated that police have investigated at least 100 women for having an abortion in the last five years.
Amendment NC1 has been backed by 177 cross-party MPs, as well as 50 leading medical bodies, women's rights groups and healthcare providers, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the British Medical Association. MPs will be voting on it today.
These calls are by no means new. Rather, abortion providers, charities, medical bodies, activists and MPs have spent years calling for abortion law to be disentangled from criminal law and overseen in the same way that other medical practices are. But their demands have often fallen on deaf ears for a whole range of reasons.
One is the fact that many Britons are oblivious that abortion care remains firmly ensconced in criminal law.
For those who need a refresher on how abortion law works here: pregnancy terminations can be legally carried out within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy in England, Scotland and Wales – but only if the abortion is approved by two doctors, with the health professionals agreeing that continuing with the pregnancy would be riskier for the physical or mental health of the woman than having an abortion.
If a medical professional delivers an abortion outside of the terms of the 1967 act, they are at risk of being prosecuted.
Legislation passed in 1861 means any woman who ends a pregnancy without getting legal permission from two doctors can technically face up to life imprisonment – fortunately, this does not currently happen in reality. Abortions after the 24-week mark can only be legally performed in very restricted situations, such as if the mother's life is in danger, or the child will have a severe disability.
So, why are so many people so keen to reform abortion law? Well, for starters, it is hardly surprising there is enthusiasm to change legislation which dates back to a time when young boys risked their lives as chimney sweeps – and public executions were legal.
Additionally, the desire for reform arises from the recognition that those who access abortions outside regulated provision or past the cut-off point are (for the most part) highly vulnerable. As such, they need support and care, not the psychological pressure and impending doom of a police investigation hanging over them; or worse still, being locked up in a prison system riddled with human rights abuses.
'Our lawmakers have a choice to make,' Sarah Salkeld, deputy medical director at leading abortion provider, MSI Reproductive Choices, tells The Independent.
'Do they want to be part of the 'green wave', moving gender equality forward? Or do they want to see prosecutions of vulnerable women on their watch? At a time when reproductive rights are facing rollbacks in many countries, and with the anti-rights movement feeling emboldened by the reversal of Roe v Wade in the United States, it could not be more important that here in the UK, elected lawmakers stand up for women and support everyone to get the medical care they need safely, confidentially and free from the threat of invasive investigation and prosecution.'
She points out that women who have illegal abortions sometimes have significant mental health problems, or may be domestic abuse victims, or teenagers whose parents are opposed to abortions. 'I don't see how it would be in anyone's interest to prosecute somebody who has gone to such desperate measures,' Ms Salkeld says. 'It just doesn't feel right and it doesn't support someone who is clearly in a very difficult position and we are talking very small numbers of people here who would potentially be in that position.'
For this reason and more, it is high time we decriminalise abortion. With the far right growing around the world and its war on reproductive rights ramping up, reform feels especially urgent. MPs were set to debate similar amendments around this time last year but ongoing campaigning efforts were abruptly cut short when a snap election was called and parliament was dissolved to make way for this.
When I think back to my own nightmare experience of having an abortion – something I wrote about in a first-person story for The Independent – I am reminded of the fear I felt contending with overwhelmed abortion providers. In the end, overstretched services meant I was left near the 10-week cut-off point for a medical abortion, which involves taking pills.
If I had gone past this deadline, I would have been forced to have a surgical abortion. While all abortions are safe, surgical ones are riskier and more of an ordeal as they involve going to hospital for a procedure.
For some, an abortion will be the most traumatic experience of their lives. For others, it is not. But the important thing to bear in mind is the fact your experience of a termination is not just dictated by your personal feelings or physical health.
On the contrary, external factors can transform a straightforward procedure you quickly recover from into a living nightmare that needlessly drags on and on. Sadly, it is the latter that women so often encounter when they are pulled into the criminal justice system after having an abortion.
We finally have the chance to change that – and improve women's lives.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Rod Stewart's wife Penny Lancaster and son Alistair wear leopard print in homage as they arrive at Glastonbury to support star in Legends slot
Penny Lancaster has arrived at Glastonbury festival to support her husband Rod Stewart as he headlines in the prestigious Legends slot. She was joined by her sons, model Alistair, 19, who was wearing a leopard print coat in preparation for his father's set and Aiden, 14. The matriarch, 54, looked very bohemian as she wore a tassel coat, oversized sunglasses, balloon trousers and a leopard print bag. The 80-year-old singer's teatime set comes the day after he claimed the country was 'fed up' with the Tories and that Labour was trying to ditch Brexit. He accused Prime Minister Keir Starmer of giving Scottish fishing rights 'back to the EU', although the Government insists it has simply renewed an existing deal for European boats. His views represent a second volte-face given that he appeared to support Labour at last year's election – despite previously backing the Conservatives. Asked where Britain's political future now lay, he told The Times: 'It's hard for me because I'm extremely wealthy, and I deserve to be, so a lot of it doesn't really touch me. 'But that doesn't mean I'm out of touch. For instance, I've read about Starmer cutting off the fishing in Scotland and giving it back to the EU. That hasn't made him popular. 'We're fed up with the Tories. We've got to give Farage a chance. He's coming across well. What options have we got? I know some of his family, I know his brother, and I quite like him.' Asked what Mr Farage stands for aside from Brexit, tighter immigration and controversial economic promises he replied: 'Yeah, yeah. But Starmer's all about getting us out of Brexit and I don't know how he's going to do that. 'Still, the country will survive. It could be worse. We could be in the Gaza Strip.' Sir Rod also seemed unconvinced that Sir Keir was going to fully address one of his personal pet hates. Three years ago, the singer donned a hi-vis jacket and rang around friends asking for help filling in potholes outside his Essex house. 'I took me Ferrari out. Nearly lost the f***ing wheel,' he said. 'And before I did in the Ferrari, I saw an ambulance that couldn't move, the wheel stuck right in there. 'So I took me mates out, and we knew what to do because I had builders in the house. 'We filled in a considerable length of the road, actually.' He added that potholes were still present 'all over Britain' in contrast to Europe.


The Sun
32 minutes ago
- The Sun
Counter-terror cops won't prosecute Kneecap over ‘kill your MP' video that sparked furious backlash
CONTROVERSIAL hip hop group Kneecap will not be prosecuted by terror cops over their "kill your MP" remarks. The Irish band - who the BBC refused to broadcast live at Glastonbury yesterday - were subject of a terror probe by the Met Police. It related to a video which emerged last month calling for the death of British politicians. The trio responded with a grovelling statement, insisting they would not incite violence against any individual. And the Met Police has now said is will not proceed with the case for a number of reasons, including the "time elapsed between the events in the video and the video being brought to police attention". The force said: "A thorough investigation has now been completed by detectives from the Counter Terrorism Command, which included interviewing an individual under caution and seeking early investigative advice from the Crown Prosecution Service. "A range of offences were considered as part of the investigation. "However, given the time elapsed between the events in the video and the video being brought to police attention, any potential summary only offences were beyond the statutory time limit for prosecution. "Relevant indictable offences were considered by the investigation team and, based on all of the current evidence available, a decision has been made that no further action will be taken at this time." 1


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Police chief sacked for rejecting ‘nonsense' racism claims launches legal battle
The head of the West Midlands Police Federation is taking legal action after he was removed from office for rejecting claims racism was widespread among his colleagues. Richard Cooke, who was elected to represent 7,000 rank and file officers in the country's second largest police force, was suspended and banned from standing in recent elections following comments he made on the X social media platform. Responding to claims made in a Channel 4 news report that racism and misogyny were widespread in West Midlands Police, Mr Cooke wrote: '....I don't recognise these attitudes. They do not represent us – we are an anti-racist organisation'. In a second tweet, he dismissed suggestions that the force had done nothing to tackle racism, writing: 'Nonsense – and so was the report but these reporters rarely bother checking their sources.' Following the remarks, which were made in December, Mr Cooke was suspended by the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) from his position as branch chairman pending an investigation. Bosses at the police union claimed his comments risked 'alienating those of our members who might be victims of discriminatory treatment -effectively leaving them with nowhere to turn for support and representation''. A 'witch hunt' It is understood the suspension came after the two officers who had featured in the original Channel 4 News report lodged a complaint. Mr Cooke lodged an appeal against his suspension but that was dismissed at a hearing in March he was not invited to attend. He was also banned from standing for election for three years meaning he was not on the recent ballot papers and so has now been replaced as branch chairman. With the support of the Free Speech Union he is challenging the process in the courts and is looking to join forces with Rick Prior, the former chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, who was sacked in similar circumstances for comments he made in the media. Mr Cooke, who has been elected as branch chairman in three separate elections since 2018, said he had been the victim of a 'witch hunt'. 'Deeply sinister' He told the Telegraph: 'I have been removed from office for speaking out in defence of my members and for reflecting their views, which is what I was elected to do. 'The media report wrongly suggested that racism and misogyny were widespread in West Midlands Police. I challenged that because I do not recognise that and it is unfair to the vast majority of my colleagues. 'I did not suggest that racism and misogyny do not exist within the force but to shut me down for stating my views is deeply sinister. 'This is a witch hunt. My reputation has been unfairly traduced and I have been removed from an elected post and banned from standing for office for speaking bluntly. There is clearly a political agenda at play here.' Lord Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, agreed: 'Twenty-five years ago, a Police Federation Chair would have been suspended for disparaging his fellow officers. Today, you get suspended for defending them. We're through the looking glass.' Mr Cooke is crowdsourcing to fund a legal claim against the PFEW and is hoping to join Mr Prior's judicial review which is currently pending. 'A striking crisis of confidence' Mr Prior was suspended and eventually sacked from his democratically elected post representing 30,000 Met officers after giving an interview in which he suggested his colleagues were worried about using force for fear of being labelled racist. In an interview with GB News, Mr Prior said: 'There's a striking crisis of confidence at the moment within policing in general, and certainly within the Met police, whereby officers are withdrawing from any kind of proactive policing for fear of falling foul of the IOPC [Independent Office of Police Conduct] or a vexatious or malicious complaint.' The day after his comments were broadcast, he was suspended by the PFEW for allegedly making comments that were 'discriminatory in nature'. He was also barred from standing for re-election but launched legal action to challenge the suspension. However after giving an interview to the Telegraph about his situation, he was immediately dismissed for breaching the terms of his suspension. Both he and Mr Cooke have now returned to frontline police roles with their own forces. A PFEW spokesman said: 'Richard Cooke was removed from his role as Chair of the West Midlands Federation branch following an extensive process, which included an appeal. 'He was investigated following complaints from members about comments on social media which were judged by a panel of his peers to have been in breach of the Federation's standards. 'Our processes, which are set in statute, were followed rigorously and applied fairly at all times. Richard Cooke remains a serving police officer with the West Midlands Force.'