Latest news with #ToniaAntoniazzi
Daily Mail
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
MPs vote in favour of measures to decriminalise abortion in move to make biggest law change in more than 50 years
MPs have voted in favour of measures to decriminalise women terminating their own pregnancies in the biggest change to the law on reproductive rights for half a century. 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.
The Herald Scotland
29-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
From 19th century to present day: Abortion laws in Scotland
Put forward by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, the NC One amendment seeks to remove women from long-standing legislation the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 in relation to their own pregnancies, which criminalise abortion. This will become law if the provision remains unamended by the Lords during its forthcoming scrutiny of the bill. Some Scottish Labour MPs, including Katrina Murray who spoke to The Herald about her plea to the Scottish Government this weekend, have been calling for Scotland to follow suit. But should they and, fundamentally, can they? Before we answer that, let's take a look at the situation down South. Situation down South In England and Wales, the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 criminalises anyone who uses instruments or administers 'poisons' to a woman with intent to cause her to miscarry. Section 58 and 59 of this act renders a woman who acts to end her own pregnancy or anyone who facilitates a woman obtaining an abortion criminally culpable. Section 60, has the bespoke offence of concealing a pregnancy. Under this, if the prosecution are able to show that you were pregnant and either a dead child has shown up that can be linked to you or there is no child despite the fact you were pregnant that can be criminal. This legislation does not cover Scotland, as specifically stated in section 78 of the act itself. Read more: Lucy Grieve: Scotland Must Press On With Abortion Law Reform Abortion Laws in Scotland So what is the situation in Scotland? Legal academic at Strathclyde University, Dr Jonathan Brown told The Herald the laws around abortion in Scotland are 'radically different' to those in England and Wales. 'The Scottish laws relating to abortion has almost nothing in common with the law relating to abortion in the rest of the UK, including Northern Ireland,' he said. Instead, abortion is criminalised by Common Law, however, there remains widespread confusion and uncertainty over whether a woman could be prosecuted as they have been in England. Under this, while prosecution of women and pregnant people seems unlikely, legal academic Dr Lynsey Mitchel argues that 'it is not something that can be guaranteed.' Another piece of abortion legislation covering Scotland is the UK Abortion Act passed in 1967 which excludes Northern Ireland. In section 5 of this act, it states that 'anything done with intent to procure a woman's miscarriage' is unlawfully done (unless authorised by section one of the act). Under this law, all abortions still require two doctors' signatures, and women must meet specific legal criteria to qualify for an abortion which essentially means that not wanting to be pregnant is not a valid reason to have an abortion. There's also the much older Concealment of Birth Scotland Act of 1809. Dr Brown explained: "What it does is essentially give rise to an evidentiary presumption that a woman has killed her own child that was born alive if she concealed her pregnancy. 'The prosecution don't need to prove the baby was born because it is designed to cover cases where a woman can be shown to have been pregnant and no child has appeared at all. "So it's got that latent flexibility in it that means that the prosecution don't need to prove the child was born alive. It then puts the burden on the woman to prove that she either aborted or gave birth to a still born child." This was the main piece of legislation used in Scotland to prosecute women for abortions or a long time, the academic tells The Herald. 'In the 19th century, that's the statute being used to prosecute women until the amount of women prosecuted for this drops off in the 20th century,' he said. Dr Brown said the 1809 act is a 'problematic' and 'discriminatory' piece of legislation which he said needs to see reform. He explained: 'What it does is essentially give rise to an evidentiary presumption that a woman has killed her own child that was born alive if she concealed her pregnancy. 'The prosecution don't need to prove the baby was born because it is designed to cover cases where a woman can be shown to have been pregnant and no child has appeared at all so it's got that latent flexibility in it that means that the prosecution don't need to prove the child was born alive. "It then puts the burden on the woman to prove that she either aborted or gave birth to a still born child. 'For all that this is openly discriminatory and quite harsh, it is actually a piece of legislation that is brought in for reasons of mercy because before 1809, it was act the mothering of children that applied here which meant that if you were convicted under these circumstances you were guilty of the crime of murder, a capital crime at the time.' Under the 1809 act, the maximum sentence for concealing abortion is two years. Between 1922 and present day, The Herald understands five women have been prosecuted under this 1809 statute in Scotland. There has been one 21st century case involving a woman in respect of her own child. Any other abortion case has involved abortion providers. Out of all these cases, no woman was acquitted. 'If it's brought in, it tends to be a conviction or a plea,' said Dr Brown, who has scoured the archives on these cases. He added: 'In England and Wales…there has been an uptick in the number of prosecutions brought, there hasn't been anything like that in Scotland.', he said. How does this fit in with the legal limit of 24 weeks? Across the UK, the legal limit for an abortion is 24 weeks into the gestation period. Dr Brown stressed that when considering illegality beyond this time period in the 1967 act, it is looking specifically at medical professionals. 'When it is talking about criminality in the context of the act, it is talking about the criminality of doctors who don't comply with what is expected of them. It doesn't criminalise woman.' he stressed. 'One of our institutional writers, David Shum, stated the foetus in Scots law is nothing more than part of the mother's body and self-harm is not criminal and, if the foetus is a part of the self, the woman acting to harm it is not criminally culpable.' Although a woman who procures drugs illegally to end her pregnancy may not be guilty of the crime around abortion laws, she may be guilty of another crime such as possession of a controlled substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act. 'The only way I can see a women being prosecuted [in Scotland for abortion] is if a woman gets pregnant, doesn't tell anyone at all that she is in fact pregnant and then having secreted the fact of her pregnancy from absolutely everyone, does something at a sufficient at a sufficiently late stage of the pregnancy in a circumstance that leaves evidence of a child that could have been born alive. 'In that circumstance, the 1809 act could be applied.' What action is the Scottish Government taking? The Scottish Government has set up an expert group to review the law on abortion and advise on whether it should be changed. The Herald understands proposals from the group are expected to be published in late August or early September.
The Herald Scotland
29-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Tampering with abortion law could make things worse
However, a legal academic has told The Herald he is concerned changes to the law may risk making the situation worse for women the legislation could affect. Read more: From 19th century to present day: Abortion laws in Scotland Why Scotland must press on with abortion law reform Last week, MPs voted for an amendment to the Crime and Policing bill in the House of Commons on Tuesday. Put forward by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, the NC One amendment seeks to remove women from long-standing legislation the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 in relation to their own pregnancies, which criminalise abortion. This will become law if the provision remains unamended by the Lords during its forthcoming scrutiny of the bill. However, this does not include Scotland as abortion law is devolved. In England and Wales, the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 criminalises anyone who uses instruments or administers 'poisons' to a woman with intent to cause her to miscarry. In Scotland, abortion is governed under Common Law, however, there remains widespread confusion and uncertainty over whether a woman could be prosecuted as they have been in England. Under common law, while prosecution of women and pregnant people seems unlikely, legal academic Dr Lynsey Mitchel argues that 'it is not something that can be guaranteed.' As a result, the Scottish Labour MP, alongside other Scottish Labour MPs including Lillian Jones and Joani Reid, is pushing for change north of the border. Ms Murray told The Herald: 'There is a presumption that abortion is not a criminal offence in Scotland. It still is, it's just a different piece of legislation. It is still there within common law. 'It is something that can't be forgotten about. There is a time limit on this government of May next year and the legislative time that is there is running down.' The MP said she was pleased the amendment was voted through by MPs last week down South. 'Whilst it affects a really small number of women, it is really fundamental to their lives. Families have been completely destroyed as a result of having to go through a criminal justice system,' Ms Murray said. However, for Strathclyde University legal academic Jonathan Brown, the concern is that "tampering" with such legislation through pursuing a route of decriminalisation could negatively impact women here. Dr Brown told The Herald: 'There's a lot of well-meaning people talking about decriminalisation but they don't really know what the law in Scotland is and they are actually liable to make things worse if they go tampering with it.' He said the UK Abortion Act passed in 1967 provides a 'prime example' that the laws around abortion in Scotland should not be changed. The academic pointed out that before 1967, only one doctor was required to authorise the termination of a pregnancy but following the act that year, there is now a requirement of two doctors. 'What you've got if you start tampering with the law is a real possibility that you make things worse. It's happened before and it's likely to happen again,' he said. However, he did say legislation such as the Concealment of Birth Scotland Act 1809 should be abolished. Between 1922 and present day, The Herald understands five women have been prosecuted under this 1809 statute in Scotland. 'The 1809 Act is problematic." Dr Brown said, "It's created situations in which the woman is convicted on the same evidence that sees the provider acquitted. 'If you abolish it, what happens is it no longer makes a carve out in cases of murder which sees women being prosecuted and convicted on the basis of less evidence." Asked what he would say to anyone calling for decriminalisation in Scotland, Dr Brown urged them to consider other reforms. 'This a good opportunity to explore the possibility of repealing the 1809 act as we need to be clear that the law relating to abortion in Scotland is completely unlike the law in the rest of the UK," he said, "You can't assume that what works for another part of the UK will work for Scotland." Asked what she wants to see in Scotland, Ms Murray told The Herald: 'I want to get to a stage where we get consistency in the law in all four countries of the UK. "We've now potentially got decriminalisation in England and Wales. We need Scottish law to catch up. 'It needs to happen before the Scottish Parliament elections in 2026.' Given the time it takes for legislation to be passed, the Scottish Labour MP admitted the the ability to do this would be difficult. Ms Murray said: 'It's recess now and it's not back till the beginning of September so this is absolutely something we need to get a move on with.' The Labour MP said another major concern for her is that some women are forced to travel from Scotland to England to receive an abortion. One woman every four days has to make the journey to access abortion care because no health board north of the border provides care up to the legal limit of 24 weeks' gestation. "This is provision needs to be there," Ms Murray said, "There is now a life-threatening concern." For BPAS, decriminalisation of abortion should form a part of wider reform of abortion laws in Scotland. 'I feel like it would be in everyone's interest to have clarity that you can't prosecute women or doctors under Common Law,' said Rachael Clarke, head of advocacy for BPAS. Ms Clarke agrees with the legal academic Dr Brown that the 1809 act is an issue but she says the bigger issues in Scotland are around provision of and access to abortion services. In Scotland, you can only have a termination after 20 weeks in cases where there is either a foetal abnormality or the woman's life is at risk. 'In Scotland what we really need is abortion law reform because the care that can be provided to women is in line with the 1967 act, it's not in line with international best practice and it limits the kind of care that women can get and as a result we need change. 'Off the back of what's happening in England and Wales, this is an impetus for reform not for doing exactly the same thing in Scotland.' The Scottish Government has set up an expert group to review the law on abortion and advise on whether it should be changed. The Herald understands proposals from the group are expected to be published in late August or early September.
Times
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Times
Abortion overreach will backfire on women
One of the many, many reasons I prefer living in the UK to the US is the former's more clement weather, which reflects the country's calmer politics. By contrast, America's storms and wildfires feel like a metaphor for its political debates, not least on abortion. So it's apt that, just as a heatwave arrives in this country, the British left loses its mind over abortion. Last week MPs voted to support an amendment, proposed by the Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, which argues that women who obtain an abortion should never be prosecuted, even if it's after the legal 24-week limit. This sounds good in theory (abortion should not be criminalised, yes, agreed) but is in fact completely nuts. The law already allows late-term abortions in extreme circumstances, but now a woman could have an abortion the day before her due date for any reason she fancied. Now, very few women will do this, and in fact very few ever have, and the harrowing stories that have been used to justify this vote largely took place during the Covid lockdown, when women were buying abortion pills in the post and couldn't see doctors to find out how far along they were in their pregnancy. So: not a widespread problem, and one that could be resolved by re-examining how the Crown Prosecution Service deals with these sad cases. • `Read more: MPs vote to decriminalise abortion Instead, MPs have decided to chuck out the UK's heretofore liberal but pragmatic approach in favour of something far more radical that most people don't want: 87 per cent of the British public are in favour of legalised abortion, but more than half draw the line at the abortion of a healthy baby over the six-month limit. Antoniazzi's amendment upends the delicate compromise that existed until now. Sensing their moment has come, politicians on the right are already arguing that the time limit here should be cut, in line with most of Europe. Meanwhile, some on the left are arguing the amendment doesn't go far enough. Stella Creasy proposed a further amendment, which was written by the part-time tax barrister, occasional fox murderer and full-time tweeter Jolyon Maugham, that would have made it impossible even to prosecute those who coerced women into late-term abortions. This was considered so extreme it was rejected by every abortion provider in the country, and also, wisely, by MPs. Undaunted, Creasy, who seems to believe she represents Washington DC rather than Walthamstow, implied that rejecting her amendment was on a par with the overturning of Roe v Wade. By way of evidence, she reeled off voguish American clichés ('the Donald Trump playbook', 'women's bodies as battlefields') which always suggest the speaker is so high on progressive platitudes they have turned off their brain. If Creasy and her ilk want to take lessons from America, they should look at what happened last week to what is euphemistically called 'paediatric gender healthcare'. On Wednesday the Supreme Court allowed red states like Tennessee to ban doctors from giving hormone treatments and body-altering surgery to gender-confused children. It is the latest blow for the gender movement in the US, and it was entirely caused by overreach by activists. Until about a decade ago, people who wanted to live as the opposite sex were seen as a niche adult demographic who should be treated with kindness. But activist groups destroyed that moderate status quo with their ludicrous arguments, such as that male rapists could be sent to women's prisons and there should be no age limit on body-altering surgery for children. The Biden administration blindly supported them until belatedly realising it was following the wilfully blind, and American politicians are now, at last, trying to undo some of the damage. None of this worked out well for trans people or the left. Progressive overreach and reality denial will always cause a backlash, something Maugham should know, given his own flailing gender activism. Creasy, too, has argued that 'some women are born with penises', suggesting a strong disconnect between her beliefs and actual biology. I'm not sure when Labour politicians decided to follow their Democrat counterparts in defending the most extreme version of a social shift, but they need to get a grip. One reason US feminists lost the abortion argument is they insisted abortion was no big deal and derided Hillary Clinton for describing it as something that should be 'safe, legal and rare', saying that last word was 'stigmatising'. It turned out that it's a lot more stigmatising to pretend getting an abortion is just a jolly lark that should come with a loyalty card. When I was 23 and 11 weeks pregnant, I had an abortion, an experience neither jolly nor terrible but necessary. Afterwards, I felt pure gratitude, which is how I still feel about it now. Since then I've sampled many experiences on the fertility menu: given birth to twins, miscarried, had a baby. You don't need to be a wet-eyed sentimentalist to know a baby becomes a baby well before it's born; I could feel when it happened to all of my babies at about the six-month mark. The legal limit exists for good reasons, including the mother's mental health, and maintaining public support for abortion. Arguing that a woman has the right to terminate a fully gestated healthy baby is the most self-defeating version of the pro-choice movement, because it will reinvigorate the anti-abortion argument in this country, just as arguing for the most extreme version of trans rights destroyed the moderate accommodations that existed before. Labour has kicked a hornets' nest with this vote. And it's women who are going to be stung.
The Independent
21-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Why the ‘individual conscience vote' of MPs had its own assisted death last week
Two votes in the Commons split by four days laid the ground for a seismic shift in British social policy making last week one of the most significant in the modern history of Parliament. But while the votes on abortion (Tuesday) and assisted dying (Friday) were officially matters of individual conscience the evidence from both suggests that the UK is now closer than ever to a US-style party politicisation of moral issues. If you vote Labour or Lib Dem you are much more likely to get a pro-choice MP, if you vote Conservative or Reform you are more likely to get a pro-life MP. This is not an accident, it is increasingly by design. How parties voted on life and death On Tuesday the decriminalisation of abortion up to birth amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill laid down by Labour Gower MP Tonia Antoniazzi won by 379 to 137. Of this 291 Labour MPs voted in favour and just 25 against while 63 Lib Dems were in favour and just two against. On the other side 92 Tory MPs voted against and just four in favour. Another four abstained by voting in both lobbies. No Reform MPs supported and four voted against. The split is not as stark on Friday's assisted dying vote but nevertheless reveals a trend. Kim Leadbeater 's bill had the support of 224 fellow Labour MPs with 160 against and 56 Lib Dems with 15 against. On the other side the Tories split 92 against to 20 in favour while Reform were three against and two in favour. Kemi Badenoch put a two line whip on the abortion vote rather than allowing a completely free vote. This indicated a party position without the threat of disciplinary action which would come with a three line whip. But, remarkably, after the abortion vote senior Tories were complaining that Ms Badenoch had not withdrawn the whip of the four MPs who voted for decriminalisation. It was different in 1967 The last time the UK saw Parliament vote on such seismic social change was back in 1967 with Liberal MP David Steel 's abortion legislation and Labour MP Leo Abse's Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised homosexuality. In both those cases parties split down the middle on conscience votes which saw the odd alliance of rightwing Tory MP Enoch Powell and leftwing Labour MP Tony Benn coming together to support legalising homosexuality. The Ed Miliband effect The erosion of the conscience vote in the UK has actually come more from a hardening of positions from progressive leftwing parties in Britain and exacerbated by the so-called culture wars. In 2012 Ed Miliband imposed a three-line whip on gay marriage on Labour MPs. LGBTQ+ matters ended there as something of individual conscience for the first time. Then in 2019 former MP Roger Godsiff was dropped as a Labour candidate for supporting parents in his Birmingham constituency who were protesting over primary school children being taught about same-sex relationships. This year we see Reform UK banning LGBTQ+ flags from county halls where they have taken control of the council and attempting to purge councils of diversity, equity and inclusion officers and policies. While abortion officially remained a matter of conscience a comment by the now home secretary Yvette Cooper in 2017 about Jacob Rees-Mogg being unfit to be a party leader because of his views on abortion was enlightening. What has happened over a number of years is that the majority of socially conservative, mostly Catholic tradition in Labour has been removed through selection processes. David Campanale versus the Lib Dems An ongoing legal case involving the Liberal Democrats and one of its former candidates has highlighted an apparent major shift in British politics to the party politicisation of conscience issues. Former BBC journalist David Campanale was kicked out as the candidate for Sutton ahead of the last election because, he claims, of his Christian beliefs. According to documents presented in the case, Luke Taylor, who replaced him as the candidate, is alleged to have claimed that 'the party of past prominent Liberal Democrats with Christian beliefs, such as Shirley Williams and Charles Kennedy, was 'over', and that he and others were building a 'secular party' which would have no place for Christians expecting to 'hold to their religious or conscientious opinions'. Mr Taylor was the teller for the votes in favour of the abortion amendment on Tuesday, who also described the assisted dying vote, which he supported, as a good way to 'neatly bookend the week.' If Mr Campanale wins his case it will for the first time provide evidence that selection is taking place on conscience issues as well as other matters. The Lib Dems have denied the claims and pointed out that their leader Sr Ed Davey goes to church. But the Christian Lib Dems including former deputy leader Simon Hughes have voiced concerns and the party has been condemned by two bishops. and a former Archbishop of Canterbury. Added to that Tim Farron, who voted against abortion and assisted dying last week, was ousted as leader over his Christian beliefs in 2017. During the assisted dying vote a number of supporters of the bill suggested that religious belief had no place in deciding such issues. A real departure from conscience. But a brand of conservatism is emerging in the UK which openly embraces traditional Christian values. Reflecting on the assisted dying vote, Tory MP Danny Kruger, a leading opponent of the bill, said: 'If we are to withstand our enemies, bring our society together, and tame the technium (somehow ensure that human values govern the new age of machines), we are going to need values that are up to the job. 'I don't think humanist atheism or progressive liberalism or whatever the new religion should be called, is up to it. Christianity is. Only Christianity is.' A warning from America In America, the conscience vote rapidly became more party-politicised as a result of the Roe vs Wade abortion ruling in in 1973. Social conservatives gradually began to take over the Republicans on the right and social progressives the Democrats. It has played out ferociously in the selection of Supreme Court justices, who recently in effect overturned Roe v Wade with a conservative majority. The most interesting US development is the way that a man like Donald Trump, previously ambiguous over abortion, has adopted a strong anti-abortion line to please his base. This played out in the 2022 midterms to the detriment of the Republicans with the Democrats using the threat to abortion rights to great effect. But it did little to help Kamala Harris in 2024. What that shows though is that parties with very strong views one way or the other can be elected largely on economic grounds but bring with them a great deal of baggage on conscience issues. After this week some would argue the same thing has happened in the opposite direction in the UK.
