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. "

Article / Archive

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.
 
Serious question: how does prosecuting women for self-administered abortions make them safer? If they don't want to be pregnant, they're going to self-administer anyway and then not go to the doctor if they're dying.
The same way not allowing men into the women’s loos makes us safer. Nothing physically stopped them before, it just wasn’t done.
Women are put off by the thought of criminal charges. Providers of abortion pills know they have to do the bare minimum at least to gatekeep. Now it’s decriminalised why not chance it? Who cares if you lie to get the pills no ones going to have a go at you, you’re not a baby killer anymore you’re brave and stunning. It’ll loosen up the attitudes around it and more women will do it. There are a lot of people who think legal= approved.
And there’s NO need for it. The UK HAD really sensible abortion legislation. This isn’t like parts of the world where there’s no access. There was no need for this. A woman who is pregnant and wants to end it for any reason up to 20 weeks can. That’s five months along, it’s pretty far gone. Any woman who after that found herself in one of rhe awful ‘almost dead baby’ kind of situations would also be able to have an abortion.
People will do it anyway isn’t a justification. People will rape and murder but we don’t hand wave it off and say oh well we lock them up (unless they’re a protected group these says …)
 
I can guarantee that any anti-abortion sentiments you unmarried moids hold would go out the window the moment your woman comes to you and tells you that she's pregnant. Then you'll be squealing about "biological blackmail" and "child support rape".
I would behead the mother of my child if they murdered them.
 
I can guarantee that any anti-abortion sentiments you unmarried moids hold would go out the window the moment your woman comes to you and tells you that she's pregnant. Then you'll be squealing about "biological blackmail" and "child support rape".
Not an argument, though. When a dude skips out on child support, regardless of whether or not he wanted the child, he is 100% seen as a deadbeat. Added to that, the law also does not care and will order him to pay his dues regardless. Therefore, personal feelings ≠ , Laws, or morality

That breaindead black woman, who gave birth to a baby and got taken off life support? She was "human life", too. Killing her was more "evil" than aborting some other woman's unwanted child
Fascinating to see how these pro abortion arguments have to dehumanize babies to make their arguments work. The lady was already brain-dead, so what would be the point of the baby dying if it had a chance to live as well? And why would killing her be more evil? I thought the major point of contention was that she was kept alive and not taken off life support?

I would behead the mother of my child if they murdered them.
Wrong site for this b-b-based take anon
 
Honest question- what is the socioeconomic status of these women getting abortions? It's hard to find a sourced statistic on income level regarding abortions in the UK
 
(Tonia Antoniazzi) 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.
If a woman kills her own baby, she is the vulnerable one, not the baby. It would be hard to imagine a more profoundly depraved belief system than neoliberalism.

Antoniazzi also averred that punishing those who cruelly kill their unborn children “is cruelty.”

Theoretically, a woman will be allowed to plunge a knife into the heart of her viable child as he or she emerges from the womb at 9 months.

Paul Joseph Watson aptly describes this as “Aztec-level barbarism”:
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Otterly
I’m a woman. This is not good legislation. The law as was was fine - the UK didn’t have restrictive legislation, women can get abortions on demand up to 20 weeks and pretty much to birth with a genuine threat to their safety or severe foetal abnormality . There are no cases here of women dying due to not having abortions. The law was fine. There were VERY few late abortions, and the couple of percent that are later are almost exclusively wanted babies where something awful has gone wrong or late miscarriage/septic miscarriage that gets terminated medically to stop rhe mother dying.
What this opens the door to is self administered abortion late on, and that absolutely WILL kill women. It creates a condition whereby self administered abortion will be done, mainly via the pills by post stuff, and women will haemorrhage to death or die of sepsis following an incomplete abortion. It’s absolutely terrible legislation even just from a safety standpoint . There’s no moral or clinical reason to do this, it is just going result in death.
I'm not even remotely as anti abortion as the average person on the site. I understand that its murder but I also understand that sometimes because of the way society is set up, murder may seem like the only viable option.

People in the past practiced infanticide for a reason, it wasn't always a good reason, but it wasn't without reason either. And yeah sometimes morality has to give way to practicability because we don't live in a utopia. I understand that refering to murder as practical may sound cold, but that's how society has operated for thousands of years, again we don't live in a utopia, its good to strive for one, but sometimes you will stumble.

However, the difference between the past and today is that in the past they didn't go out of their way to celebrate and downplay it.

People in the past knew it was murder, they also knew it could be nessesary, they kept it on the down low. While moraly wrong, it existed in a societally grey area.

By contrast today you have women screaming from the rooftops that its a human right and its for equality and whatever else buzzword. Its one thing to commit murder, its another to scream about how its your god given right to do so whenever and however you want for any reason whatsoever.
 
Either the unborn count or they dont. If they do, abortion outside of imminent (non-mental) medical emergency should be homicide and illegal.

If they dont, terminating women's pregnancies without their consent is aggravated assault at worst.

And before that one poster is like "so are natural abortions homicide?" Obviously not the same way dying of cancer isn't suicide.
 
Its one thing to commit murder, its another to scream about how its your god given right to do so whenever and however you want for any reason whatsoever.
I think this is part of why it disturbs me so much. Abortion has always happened and it was kind of a grey area - you wouldn’t shout about it, and yet it was kind of queasily accepted that sometimes, maybe, it happened. I suppose we sort of politely ignored it and in Britain that’s how we tolerate but don’t endorse or push?
The way society has changed it’s processing for want of a better word of these sort of behaviours is not good.
Previously if a woman had needed to terminate a non viable pregnancy she’d be very upset, and people would understand, and it kind of wouldnt be talked about. Not exactly shameful, but just painful and not to be discussed openly. If a woman chose not to proceed for her own reasons again that’d be private. It would just be done.
I don’t like that we glorify this. It doesn’t feel right. We seem to shout about a lot of functions of the body and society that are private. A lot of behaviours around sex are no longer seen as a private thing but almost a badge of honour. It’s very strange. Maybe I’m just a relic.
 
Back