Peers speak out against regressive abortion up to birth clause

Moves to decriminalise abortion are unsafe, ill-considered and regressive, the House of Lords has been told.

During a debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, Peers called for Antonia Antoniazzi MP’s Clause 191 — which allows a woman to kill her unborn baby at any stage of pregnancy without sanction — not to become law.

In June, MPs passed Antoniazzi’s radical and extreme proposal by 379 votes to 137, with only two hours of debate. They also rejected a proposal to reinstate in-person consultations under the pills-by-post scheme.

‘Backstreet abortion’

Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest noted: “a supreme irony that those who claim to support legal abortion on the basis that the alternative would be unsafe — illegal abortions — are now proposing that women can perform such illegal abortions, outside the terms of the Abortion Act, in an unsafe environment”.

She warned that a change in the law “would, in effect, reintroduce backstreet abortion”, opening up the way for women to abort their children “at home, on their own, without the prospect of any subsequent investigation, using pills not designed for use outside of a clinical context beyond 10 weeks”.

The Peer said the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill “was not designed, and is not an appropriate forum, to bring further widening of already highly permissive abortion laws. It is astonishing that the Committee is being asked to consider such a far-reaching law with so little prior scrutiny.”

Echoing Lady Monckton’s concerns, Baroness O’Loan feared that if the amendment passed it risked sending a message that DIY abortions are safe. Consequently, she added, despite being decriminalised, women “may die or face life-changing injuries”.

Baroness Monckton says that allowing women 'complete autonomy' of their bodies with regards to abortion renders an unborn child as mere 'property', with no more rights than a slave. She says the proposals to decriminalise abortion are not 'progress'. pic.twitter.com/YTyqaYRdna

— The Christian Institute (@christianorguk) February 2, 2026

Harms

A number of Peers, including Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee, pressed for the reinstatement of mandatory in-person consultations before abortion pills can be prescribed.

Lady Foster said a return to the pre-Covid requirement “would enable reliable gestational age checks”, assist in detecting coercion, and “protect women from the significant health risks that accompany taking abortion pills beyond the legal limit”.

Baroness Spielman observed that the clause explicitly legitimised “the ultimate harm of killing a viable child if it is done by the mother, even where there is clear dishonesty or other wrongdoing by the mother and no mitigating circumstances whatever”.

The chamber was warned by Lord Weir of Ballyholme that the clause effectively endorsed sex-selective abortions. He said: “It is somewhat regressive of society if we move to a point where we say that, in some cases, a girl’s life is not worth the same as a baby boy’s life. That smacks of the eugenics of the late 19th century or early 20th century.”

Sanctity of life

Lord Jackson of Peterborough explained to colleagues: “I am afraid I simply cannot understand the view that holds that Clause 191 is pro-women.

“In combination with the ongoing availability of pills by post, it instead seems to me to offer the worst of both worlds. It opens the gates for overly expeditious access to less-than-safe care.”

He advocated the need for data collection should the amendment become law, including annual reviews of its “operation and impact” and an examination of maternal complications. He also called for the Secretary of State to be given powers to repeal Clause 191 if it is shown “to be causing harm”.

Veteran pro-lifer Lord Alton of Liverpool reminded the House: “Abortion is not just a medical procedure. It is not just about choice; it ends the life of a nascent human being.” He stated: “This is no way to make law. The Government would be well advised to withdraw this clause, pending further consideration of the practical issues that it raises.”

Peers will revisit Clause 191 at Report Stage in the coming weeks.