Peers bid to overturn abortion up to birth clause

Two respected members of the House of Lords are set to table amendments to overturn the ‘abortion up to birth’ clause in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill and to reinstate in-person medical consultations before at-home abortions.

Baroness Monckton MBE believes that allowing women to have abortions at any stage of pregnancy without sanction will lead to more women conducting dangerous late-term abortions by themselves. This is because, while women will not face criminal charges, the same does not apply to doctors who assist in an abortion post-24, weeks unless the mother’s life is at risk or the baby is deemed to have a disability.

And while an amendment to reinstate in-person appointments was rejected by the House of Commons, Baroness Stroud is seeking to outlaw the ‘pills-by-post’ scheme that has been in place since the coronavirus pandemic.

‘Extreme social change’

The moves follow a debate in the House of Lords on the Crime and Policing Bill, which contains Antonia Antoniazzi’s Clause 191. This clause, which allows women to abort their babies up to birth, was passed by MPs in June, with 379 in favour and 137 against. Lady Monckton’s amendment would remove it.

The baroness said: “This is an extreme social change for which there is no public pressure or demand, and could have tragic consequences for women, as well as leading to increased numbers of abortions of viable babies.

“This radical clause was added to the Bill after less than an hour of debate by MPs, and without the necessary scrutiny required for an issue of such seriousness. Whatever one’s views on abortion, this is not how responsible laws are made”.

She added: “A large number of peers have indicated that they will support my amendment to remove Clause 191″.

Making matters worse

Lady Monckton said she was supporting Baroness Stroud’s amendment on in-person appointments, which she said would ensure “gestation, health risks and any coercion risks can be properly assessed”.

Lady Stroud said: “Supporters of decriminalising abortion up to birth cite a small number of prosecutions of women for illegal late-term abortions in recent years.

“The increase in such cases is a direct result of the ‘pills by post’ scheme, whereby women can receive abortion pills without an in-person consultation to verify their gestational age is within the legal limit”.

She added: “The solution to such cases is not to make matters worse by removing the legal deterrent against women performing their own at-home abortions up to birth, which would likely endanger women further, but to reinstate in-person consultations”.

Pills by post

Lady Stroud continued: “I, and many others, warned of the dangers of the ‘pills by post’ scheme when it was introduced. Sadly, those warnings have come true.”

“This change has widespread public support and would better protect women by helping prevent further cases of coerced or dangerous late-term abortions linked to the ‘pills by post’ scheme”.

The only fit place for Clause 191 is the cutting room floor.Lord Farmer

Right to Life UK spokesperson Catherine Robinson said: “The abortion lobby is pushing to decriminalise abortion to cover up the disastrous effects of its irresponsible pills by post scheme, which endangers women by removing the requirement for in-person consultations before abortion pills may be prescribed”.

“The solution is clear. We should urgently reinstate in-person appointments. This simple safeguard would help prevent women’s lives from being put at risk from self-administered late-term abortions, a danger that would be exacerbated if abortion were ‘decriminalised’ right up to birth”.

Endangering women

During the debate on Thursday in the House of Lords, a series of Peers heavily criticised the decriminalisation amendment.

Lord Frost said: “It is foreseeable that, in practice, this will make abortions up to birth more common, endanger more women because of the medical risks of termination after 24 weeks, and create pressure for a similar decriminalisation for medical practitioners themselves.

“People will argue, ‘How can it be illegal for a doctor to help with something that is not in itself illegal?’ or they will say that doctors need to be able to perform late-term abortions to avoid the risks of terminations at home. It is the beginning of a slippery slope.

No demand

He continued: “There is no demand for this. Polling shows that more than half the public favour keeping abortion after 24 weeks a criminal offence and only 1% of women support introducing abortion up to birth—and, in passing, 70% of women support a reduction in the time limit from 24 to 20 weeks.”

“The clause would remove one of the few remaining legal protections for the unborn. In our country, if children are born prematurely after 24 weeks, the medical system will do everything it can to save them, and it is often successful.

“Yet this clause will make it possible to try to end the life of a baby after 24 weeks without criminal consequences. It is simply inconsistent, not just with current abortion law but with current law around maternal and child health more broadly.”

The unborn’s moral status

Lord Jackson of Peterborough said Antoniazzi’s clause is “unnecessary, badly drafted and will harm women”, saying: “We already have one of the most permissive abortion laws in the world. Even David Steel said he never intended the Abortion Act 1967 to enable termination to be treated like a form of contraception.”

He added: “The change in the law is not because there are women who cannot get abortions or because it is too difficult to get a doctor to sign off, but because of an ideological commitment to presenting abortion as a form of healthcare, like the removal of a tumour.

“The humanity of the baby in the womb is ignored. A wanted child is a baby and should be protected; an unwanted child is a foetus — an othering word, if ever there was one — and can be removed and disposed of.

“I simply do not believe the degree to which a mother wants or does not want her baby changes the moral status of the child and think we need to have a national conversation about this.”

‘Pseudo-virtuous’

Lord Farmer said: “Despite risks to women, this clause, intended to transform our societal approach to abortion, was appended in a rushed, emotive way in the other House. There is a pattern here. Safe access zones around all abortion clinics were also hurriedly appended to the Public Order Act in the Commons.

“That was despite testimonies from women now with grown-up children whom they were very glad they decided not to terminate after talking to caring and compassionate people outside clinics. Once such measures appear in legislation, they acquire unassailability on the grounds of care and compassion for women seeking abortions.

“Clause 191 repeats the same pseudo-virtuous stitch up: a short discussion in the other House on Report of a Bill that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, with the assumption that all fair-minded people should agree to it.

“Those who do not can just be dismissed as reactionaries, because abortion is treated as an unlimited good in our topsy-turvy moral universe.”

Vital protections ‘shredded’

Lord Farmer continued: “Whatever we individually think about abortion, the laws of this land and a wide range of other considerations are being ignored or twisted out of shape to meet the insatiability of extreme bodily autonomy. Safe access zones sacrificed freedom of speech on that altar.”

He said Antoniazzi’s clause “shreds a woman’s criminal responsibility and, with it, a vital protection for her against a partner or family member coercing or predating on her to have a late-term abortion.

“Bringing about her own late-stage termination of a baby that has been kicking, hiccupping and otherwise moving in utero will leave a long tail of effects on her life.”

He concluded: “the only fit place for Clause 191 is the cutting room floor”.