MPs vote to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales
The amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, abolishing the prosecution of women for terminating their pregnancy at any stage, passed by 379 votes to 137.
It represents the biggest shake-up in reproductive rights for almost 60 years.
Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, who tabled the so-called "New Clause One" (NC1), said it would ensure women do not face investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment in relation to any pregnancies.
She said the current "Victorian" laws had been used against vulnerable women, citing cases such as Nicola Packer, who was prosecuted on suspicion of having an illegal abortion. She was found not guilty in May.
"Nicola's story is deplorable, but there are many others," Ms Antoniazzi said.
Abortion in England and Wales is currently a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider for up to 24 weeks after conception. The procedure is allowed after this time in very limited circumstances.
It is also legal to take prescribed related medication at home if a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant.
Ms Antoniazzi said NC1 was "a narrow, targeted measure" that would not change how abortion services were provided or the rules under the 1967 Abortion Act.
She said: "The 24 [week] limit remains. Abortions still require the approval of signatures of two doctors, and women would still have to meet the grounds laid out in the Act."
The MP said that meant healthcare professionals "acting outside the law and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy would still be criminalised, as they are now."
She added: "This piece of legislation will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help.
"As I have said before, and I will say it again, just what public interest is this serving? This is not justice, it is cruelty and it has got to end."
16:48
The change will not come into effect immediately as the Crime and Policing Bill is still making its way through Parliament.
A separate amendment, put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy, went further with a measure to "lock in" the right of a person to have an abortion while protecting those who help them.
However, her amendment was not voted on because Ms Antoniazzi's passed, as expected.
Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh, speaking against both amendments, described them as "not pro-woman" and argued they "would introduce sex-selective abortion".
How did MPs vote?
MPs were given a free vote on the amendment, as is typically the case with so-called matters of conscience.
A breakdown of the vote showed it was passed overwhelmingly by Labour and Lib Dem MPs.
Just eight Conservative MPs voted in favour, while all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment, with the exception of the party's leader Nigel Farage, who abstained.
Sir Keir Starmer was not present for the vote as he is currently in Canada for the G7 summit, but said earlier that his "longstanding in-principle position is that women have the right to a safe and legal abortion".
The issue of women investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions has been in the spotlight due to several recent high-profile cases.
Ms Packer was cleared by a jury last month after taking prescribed abortion medicine at home when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, beyond the legal limit of 10 weeks.
In the Commons, Ms Antoniazzi cited another case of a young mother who was jailed for two years after she was forced to take illegal abortion medication by her abusive partner. He was never investigated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
33 minutes ago
- Times
Veterans minister may quit if Troubles-era troops lose immunity
The veterans minister is expected to resign over government plans to repeal the law that granted Troubles-era servicemen immunity from prosecution. Alistair Carns, a former Royal Marines commando, is said to have told ministers that he cannot support any proposal that would leave veterans vulnerable to criminal proceedings. Government sources said that Carns had made his position clear at a drop-in session for Labour MPs hosted by Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, on Monday last week. Benn had invited colleagues to be briefed on the Northern Ireland Office's plans to replace the Legacy and Reconciliation Act, the 2023 law that ended dozens of civil cases and inquests examining killings during the Troubles. At its heart is a conditional amnesty for all suspects in historic cases related to violence during the conflict. Conservative MPs had long pushed for the legislation to protect former soldiers from prosecution but the act's provisions also apply to republican and loyalist paramilitaries, provided they co-operate with a new information recovery body. Labour's election manifesto pledged to repeal the law and Benn said last year that it was 'completely wrong' that it had barred victims' families from pursuing new inquests or civil action in the courts. He has promised to abolish immunity for suspects, including veterans. Carns, who was appointed to the government within days of his election to the Commons last July, is understood to have told Benn that he could not endorse new legislation, due to be published within weeks, that reopened the possibility of veterans being prosecuted. 'There is a huge row brewing,' a government source said, adding: 'Everyone has been left with the impression that this is a resignation matter.' The minister was not present when MPs debated a petition signed by 176,485 people opposed to Benn's proposals in Westminster Hall on Monday evening. Suggestions that he is hostile to any change in policy on Troubles prosecutions risk embarrassing No 10, which made much of the fact that Carns, who won a Military Cross and is among the most decorated soldiers to have sat in the Commons, joined Labour last year. Senior figures in Downing Street are increasingly nervous of the backlash to the legislation. While Carns has yet to clarify his position publicly, the government's veterans commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales signalled their opposition to any legislative change in a joint statement on Monday night. 'We stand united in our firm support of the motion to be debated in Westminster today. We are deeply concerned by the prospect of retrospective legal action being taken against veterans who were carrying out their lawful duties, often under immense pressure and threat. 'We urge the government to resist any changes to legislation that would reopen legal uncertainty for veterans of Operation Banner,' David Johnstone, James Phillips and Susie Hamilton said. 'Any proposed changes must be measured, fair and informed by the voices of veterans themselves — many of whom have already endured decades of scrutiny and hardship. 'This is not a call for immunity from the law, but for fairness under it. Veterans deserve clarity, finality and respect for their service.' They added: 'There can be no moral equivalence between those who served in uniform to uphold peace and the rule of law, and those who sought to destroy it through acts of terrorism.' During the debate, hundreds of soldiers who served during the Troubles descended on Parliament Square to protest against the plans. They warned that modern soldiers would hesitate to pull the trigger in combat if the government were to remove legal protections for troops who served in Northern Ireland. • Trauma of veteran who faced jail over SAS shooting of IRA members The former servicemen massed on motorbikes and blasted their horns while circling Parliament Square during a 'rolling thunder' demonstration. The riders have been campaigning on the subject since 2019, but said that Labour's reignition of the debate made this their most important event to date. Veterans from all three services said that the move had 'reopened old wounds' and was fuelling a recruitment crisis. They said that the move could also be dangerous for serving soldiers whose fear of being dragged through the courts later in life may prevent them from fighting. 'No one will want to the pull the trigger,' said Geoff York, 71, a former lance corporal in The Blues and Royals cavalry regiment, who served for six years in Northern Ireland. 'If they're doing this to us, they'll be doing it to those who served in Afghanistan, Iraq … In 30 or 40 years' time, when these young soldiers are our age, they'll be getting the same thing. It is already reflecting on recruitment. Recruitment is on the floor across the three services.' York said that during the Troubles, British soldiers carried a 'yellow card' detailing the rules of engagement, which instructed troops to give a person three warnings before opening fire. Any soldier involved in a shooting would be investigated by the Royal Military Police and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. 'They would say 'you were in your rights to open fire' but many years later it's come to bite us on the rear,' he said. Special forces soldiers have also criticised Labour's pledge to reopen investigations. In a joint statement shared with The Times, seven commanders of The 22nd Special Air Service Regiment, who served in the elite unit during the Troubles, said: 'We have already processed our grief within our units and with the families of our fallen comrades. 'There's nothing healthy about perpetually reopening these wounds through endless legal proceedings. The harsh reality is that these new hearings are an exercise in futility. The terrorists responsible for killing our colleagues have already been granted 'letters of comfort' — effectively immunity from prosecution. 'So while these investigations might reopen painful chapters for veterans' families, they cannot deliver any meaningful justice. The terrorists walk free while we debate the merits of investigating decades-old cases. 'Our fallen comrades would not want their deaths to be used as political leverage to keep their families and the families of their comrades who are now being hounded, trapped in an endless cycle of hearings and investigations.' Carns and the Ministry of Defence were contacted for comment.
BreakingNews.ie
an hour ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Omagh bombing inquiry seeks secret 15-year-old transcript from archive
The British parliament's rules watchdog has three-and-a-half months to decide whether to release a secret transcript, amid efforts to establish whether the 1998 Omagh bombing could have been prevented. Omagh Bombing Inquiry solicitor Tim Suter has asked for information about an allegation 'that police investigators into previous attacks in Moira, Portadown, Banbridge and Lisburn did not have access to intelligence materials which may have reasonably enabled them to disrupt the activities of dissident republican terrorists' in the Co Tyrone town. Advertisement The allegation is thought to have been made during a private session of the Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee almost 16 years ago, on November 11th, 2009. Conservative MP Simon Hoare warned there was 'no wriggle room' in the UK parliament's rules to hand over the information to the inquiry without MPs' say-so, because it previously went 'unreported'. Commons committees can refrain from reporting evidence in certain circumstances, for example, if it contains information which is prejudicial to the public interest. British MPs tasked the Commons Privileges Committee with looking at the 2009 transcript. Advertisement This seven-member group has until October 30th to decide whether to report and publish the evidence, which was originally given to the House by former senior police officer Norman Baxter. 'It is very hard for the House to decide whether or not to release evidence it has not seen and cannot see before the decision is made,' Mr Hoare warned. 'It is particularly difficult in this case, as that evidence may contain sensitive information.' The North Dorset MP added that the Privileges Committee 'might simply decide to publish it'. Advertisement Chairman of the Omagh Bombing Inquiry Lord Turnbull (PA) But the agreed motion will give the committee power to make an alternative recommendation 'on the desirability or otherwise of the release of the evidence to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry'. Privileges Committee chairman Alberto Costa, the Conservative MP for South Leicestershire, told MPs that his organisation 'stands ready to deal with this matter'. Ireland UK government has 'plain duty' to assist Omagh inq... Read More The independent inquiry chaired by Lord Turnbull will consider whether the Omagh bombing 'could reasonably have been prevented by UK state authorities'. The dissident republican bomb exploded in the Co Tyrone town on August 15th, 1998, killing 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins. Advertisement Mr Hoare agreed with DUP MP for Strangford Jim Shannon, who was born in Omagh, after he told the Commons that 'justice' should be at the 'forefront of all right honourable and honourable members' minds during this process'.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: Israel/Gaza conflict shows Labour Party has lost it's moral compass
Readers are appalled innocents are dying daily in Gaza while the West does, apparently, little Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... On Sunday, Israel killed six children waiting in a queue for water. This follows on from the killing of 24 people on Saturday at a food distribution site. The silence of Keir Starmer and the Labour Party about these and many other atrocities is deafening. This contrasts starkly with Labour's over the top reaction to the Glastonbury chants, to the absurd decision to designate Palestine Action a terrorist group, and the demand by the ridiculous Lisa Nandy that BBC journalists be sacked. I have been a member of the Labour Party for 55 years but it appears that under the current leadership it has completely lost its moral compass. Robert Cairns, Ceres, Cupar, Fife Children queue with pots to receive meals from a charity kitchen in Gaza City yesterday (Picture: Bashar Taleb/AFP via Getty Images) All talk Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As thousands join to mark the 30th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre (your report, 12 July), the latest missile attack by an Israeli drone on a group of civilians queuing for water is a timely reminder of such terror attacks on civilians. Ten killed including six children, many more die each day in separate attacks on civilian areas. Where is the justification? The West does nothing. Since 27 May, when US/Israeli-managed food distribution points were set up, over 600 have been killed and nearly 5,000 injured. Some describe it as genocide and ethnic cleansing. Israel has decided it can no longer live next to the people of Gaza. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu stated in May that all of Gaza will come under Israeli military control, while some within his government openly talk about starving its people. He backs Donald Trump's Riviera plan for a holiday haven for the super rich. The UN claimed that Israel is 'weaponising food aid' while the UK, France and Canada warned of 'further concrete actions' if the humanitarian position did not improve. Two months later the situation appears to have deteriorated. Where are these actions and how much longer must this continue? More than 55,000 killed and 120,000 injured yet the West continues to supply Israel with weapons. Neil Anderson, Edinburgh Keep out of it The SNP failed to get independence for Scotland for a very good reason, its arguments were very flawed. Fast forward to just now and the SNP is calling for a Palestinian state. What due diligence has the SNP done to assure Israelis that this is a safe thing to do? This entire current war is based upon Israel's fears for its own future. In keeping with the rest of us I am sure that the growing casualty toll in Gaza is intolerable, but given Hamas's prime function is to wipe Israel off the map would it not be more helpful to pressurise Hamas to give back all the hostages now rather than facilitate an aggressive state on Israel's border? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Independence for Scotland was never a serious consideration by the SNP even at the height of Nicola Sturgeon's powers, so surely meddling in international affairs is way beyond its pay grade. Why does it not just sort out the Scotland's ever growing number of SNP-self induced problems instead? Gerald Edwards, Glasgow Staying resolute Each day, more and more Palestinians are murdered in Gaza, a daily trickle dripping to a massacre, now amounting to over 58,000 and rising. Undoubtedly, far too many of those killed are innocent women and children, aid workers and medics. A new word has emerged from the ongoing catastrophe, namely 'simaud', meaning resilience, not giving up. At a time when Palestinians are not welcome in their own homes, they are all the more determined to stay, believing, against all the odds, that their resilience will eventually win the day. The Israeli government will, hopefully sooner rather than later, have to answer for their continuing war crimes, and face the consequences, not least Benjamin Netanyahu, who has even managed to alienate Donald Trump. One thing is for sure, the Palestinians' simaud will prevail, as the tide of world opinion turns in their favour. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh All or nothing Susan Dalgety articulates much of what I was thinking about the possibility of increasing the age at which you can get married in Scotland (Perspective, 12 July). One point in particular which she touches on needs to be articulated more – there needs to be consistency in when someone becomes an adult. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There is at best a contradiction, and at worst a hypocrisy, in saying that people aged 16 or 17 cannot get married, yet they are old enough to make adult decisions about how to vote. It needs to be all or nothing to have any credibility. Andrew Anderson, Forfar, Angus Be afraid After the 2026 election, we could face extremists in position of power in Scotland once again, and just think what that could mean. The Scottish Greens, for most of whose elected members a telephone box full of voters would be a triumph, could once more be in a position to get leading ministerial roles, due to the voting system used by Holyrood. The SNP will need them to cling to power. The others tend to cancel each other out. Think of the gender obsessions, the off-the-spectrum ideas that would embarrass a Primary Five class, the insane tax and spend policies, these and much more would be on the cards. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A vote for the SNP will bring Green rule to Scotland. Vote SNP and get Ross Greer & Co to decide your future. Alexander McKay, Edinburgh High-risk Brian Wilson is correct when he says 'Betting the house on offshore wind is a high-risk strategy', and he also advises that 'much of the ScotWind programme may never be built because lower cost alternatives may emerge' (Perspective, 11 July). A balanced energy policy cannot rely on renewables alone, but must retain nuclear and gas for base load electricity generation, with gas for heating – the alternatives are too expensive. Wilson hints at this aspect. Going all electric will increase peak day power generation by three times, which will require additional transmission and distribution lines, and we should also recognise this planet that we live on can cope with a reasonable increase in greenhouse gases. Cars will be electric, but we must retain hybrids for emergency vehicles, and to make certain of access to remote areas – diesel pick-up trucks and petrol chainsaws are a necessity as well, and don't forget about retaining oil as a feed stock – not imported oil. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Government needs to plan an energy policy which works for everyone and will also save the planet. James Macintyre, Linlithgow, West Lothian EV money The UK Government (the one scrabbling to close the £22 billion 'black hole' in its finances, many of whose politicians parrot the 'heat the house or put food on the table' mantra) is poised to announce a £700bn fund to encourage people to buy more electric cars. This includes paying for 'infrastructure' such as pavement gullies for cables to enable roadside charging, and grants to make electric vehicles cheaper to buy. This is seemingly one of the legendary 'tough decisions' for a country faced with a huge list of problems including rising poverty, a housing crisis due to poor supply and unaffordable prices, and cuts in care home staff. The climate is definitely changing, but how will £700 million on a few thousand more electric cars on UK roads solve that when the UK only contributes to 1 per cent of global warming. But we will experience, if we are to believe the forecasts, a massive impact, including floods, due to more rain and higher tides, fires and millions of immigrants fleeing drought and famine. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Economics and public spending is all about choices based on politics, risk and outcomes and £700m – almost certainly borrowed – would be better spent on shoring up public services, building good, cheap homes or planning and constructing proper defences from the predicted problems. Or is this more about shoring up Ed Miliband's defences and providing an 'off ramp' for car manufactures who face a £15,000 fine for every internal combustion car sold above their quota limit? Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire Robbed? After 'It's Scotland's oil', now it's 'Scotland's Renewables'. It's all part of the long-running 'we wuz robbed' farce, and the latest exponent is Jim Finlayson (Letters, 14 July). According to him, 'we are here to produce renewable energy and to put up with the costs without deriving any benefit'. Funnily enough, the one thing nationalists never mention in the energy debate is that renewables are heavily subsidised and that the majority of the funding for these subsidies comes from a levy on electricity suppliers which is then passed on to consumers throughout the UK through their electricity bills. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Certainly, Scottish consumers pay for this. But the vast bulk of the subsidies is paid for by consumers in the rest of the UK, some 62 million or more of them. The annual subsidy cost is £25.8bn – almost half of spending on defence – to replace cheap gas with expensive electricity. Since 2002, when subsidies were tiny, the cost to UK households of the subsidies has been almost £8,000 each. What would happen to the cost of electricity consumed by five million Scots if the subsidies for renewables were slashed by some 62m UK contributions? We certainly would not be better off. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh Write to The Scotsman
