On Monday this week, the House of Lords debated controversial Clause 191 of the Crime and Policing Bill which would decriminalise abortion for women acting in relation to their own pregnancy.
The amendment to include this clause in the Bill was passed in the House of Commons in June last year by a majority of 242 votes after just 46 minutes of debate. There was no consultation with the public and no evidence sessions or committee scrutiny before this clause was inserted into the bill. If passed, it will mark the biggest change to abortion law since abortion was first legalised in 1967.
Reintroducing back-street abortions
Baroness Monckton, supported by three other peers, proposed that clause 191 be removed from the bill. She noted that decriminalising abortion would effectively reintroduce back-street abortions: “There is 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. This law change would, in effect, reintroduce back-street abortion, as women would not be able to have terminations in a clinic beyond the 24-week limit but could do so 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 potential consequences are terrifying.”
She also pointed out that if this clause becomes law, “the viable unborn child would have the moral status of property, just as a slave did in the American Deep South in the 18th century.”
Several other peers spoke in support of the proposal to remove clause 191 from the bill, including: Baroness Meyer, Baroness Foster, Baroness O’Loan, Baroness Ritchie, Baroness Eaton, Lord Jackson, Lord Weir, and Lord Alton.
Require in-person consultation
Four peers backed an amendment to require an in-person consultation before being prescribed abortion pills. Telemedicine abortion was initially allowed as a temporary emergency measure during the Covid pandemic, and then made permanent after a vote in Parliament in March 2022.
Baroness Foster explained that without in-person consultations, there is no way for abortion providers to reliably assess gestational age. Those cases where women have taken abortion pills beyond the legal limit have involved the women misleading the abortion provider about her gestational age.
She pointed out: “An accurate gestational age check ought to be the bare minimum that we expect of abortion providers, which receive, on average, a reported £580 of taxpayers’ money per abortion—an increase of 42% in the five years since the pills by post scheme came in—even though their costs have been slashed by the removal of in-person appointments. In-person gestational age checks would not only prevent women wilfully misleading providers about their gestation but protect women who may mistakenly believe that they are in the early stages of pregnancy but who are actually further along.”
Baroness Foster also noted that reinstating the requirement of in-person appointments would also “protect women from the significant health risks that accompany taking abortion pills beyond the legal limit.” She cited a study sponsored by Christian Concern which found that 1 in 17 women end up in hospital following complications from taking abortion pills.
Requiring in-person consultations would also protect women from correction and abuse which is not visible over the telephone. Baroness Foster cited polling from last year showing that two-thirds of women support a return to in-person consultation. She also explained that while abortion decriminalisation was forced on Northern Ireland by Parliament, Northern Ireland does not have telemedicine abortion so this amendment would bring the rest of the UK into line with the law in Northern Ireland.
She aptly concluded: “Pills by post has been an experiment that has gone wrong, and it is time that we reverse the scheme.”
A woman nearly died because of no ultrasound
Baroness Ritchie also spoke in favour of this amendment. She cited a case discussed in an article in the Irish Medical Journal in March 2024 where a young woman nearly died from an ectopic pregnancy after taking abortion pills. The article reported that her suffering “could have been prevented by an ultrasound.” The article notes that the practice of not requiring an ultrasound to mothers requesting abortion pills could “result in mortality due to misdiagnosis”.
Baroness Ritchie also cited an article by Times journalist Janice Turner from last year entitled: “I’ve always been pro-choice but this is too far.” She also cited polling from 2024 showing that only 1% of women support abortion up to birth, and just 16% of the public support removing a legal deterrent after the 24-week limit.
Legalising sex-selective abortions
Baroness Eaton pointed out that decriminalising abortion would fully legalise sex-selective abortions. She explained that the public are strongly opposed to sex-selective abortion, with some 91% of women supporting an explicit ban on sex-selective abortion. She cited official statistics stating: “The evidence suggests there may have been approximately 400 sex selective abortions to female fetuses of Indian ethnicity, after 2 or more previous children, in England and Wales over the 5 year period from 2017 to 2021.”
This is just one community, and Baroness Foster argued that new data suggests that this problem has continued in the years since, and that “these figures are likely to be just the tip of the iceberg.”
Baroness Foster also cited and article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal which states: “Easy access to abortion and advances in prenatal sex determination have combined to make Canada a haven for parents who would terminate female fetuses in favour of having sons, despite overwhelming censure of the practice, economists and bioethics experts say.”
She also cited news reports from Australia that migrant mothers are giving birth to more boys than girls since decriminalisation of abortion there. One doctor in Australia was even investigated for failing to refer a patient who wanted an abortion on the basis of gender.
Amendment to legally protect viable babies
Baroness Meyer proposed an amendment that would preserve legal protection for unborn babies who could survive outside the womb. As she pointed out: “Clause 191 would remove protections where the death of a viable baby was caused by the mother, meaning that even a full-term baby could be aborted by the mother with no legal consequences.”
She noted: “Removing all limits is to cross a line. Close to birth, the difference between a foetus and a newborn may be a matter of hours, yet one would be fully protected in law, while the other could lawfully be destroyed. We do not allow infanticides of newborn babies, so why should the law treat a full-term unborn baby differently? This proposal was not in the manifesto and has had no public consultation. Such a profound change deserves scrutiny. Public support for abortion up to full term is very limited, while support for protection after viability is strong.”
Baroness Meyer sadly withdrew her amendment at the end of the debate.
The debate continues
The Crime and Policing Bill will continue to progress through Committee Stage in the House of Lords where further amendments will be discussed. It will then progress to Report Stage when there may be votes on some of the proposed amendments to the bill. It will then go to Third Reading for final refinements. It is encouraging to see how many peers spoke passionately about the need to remove clause 191 from the bill. We hope and pray that this is what the House of Lords decides to do so that abortion is not decriminalised in this country.
