Dear
SPUC supporter,
The House of Lords has just concluded its committee stage debate on the abortion decriminalisation clause. It’s a late one, but I wanted to update you.
As is often the case at committee stage, there were no votes- these will now come at Report stage. However, many peers spoke out strongly against the inclusion of the abortion decriminalisation clause (Clause 191) in the Bill. Nearly 20 peers spoke directly against the clause, with many others expressing serious concerns.
The case for removing Clause 191 was led by Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest. She set out the argument powerfully, saying:
“Laws exist for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, they exist to deter us from doing things that would cause significant harm to ourselves or others, out of motives that may be devious or simply desperate. The current law prohibiting women from performing their own abortions after 24 weeks is one such law. The existing legal deterrent protects women. For example, if a partner seeks to pressure a woman into an abortion beyond the 24-week limit — a limit which I note is already double that common in most European countries — a woman can currently point to the criminal law as a reason for not doing so. Removing this would make it much harder for vulnerable women to resist such pressure and would be particularly troubling given the dangers of unsupervised, self-induced abortions later in pregnancy.”
She then summed up the regressive nature of the proposal, saying:
“This is the case for absolute decriminalisation of abortion in any circumstances, and that is the true intention of the proposers of this clause. It would mean that up to full term, 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. No one could be criminally liable for the destruction of their own human property. I do not consider this progressive.”
A number of other important amendments were also debated. Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee led efforts to end the ‘pills by post’ policy, exposing how abortion providers are now calling for decriminalisation to shield themselves from the serious consequences of that policy. As she put it:
“It is remarkable that one of our leading abortion providers should respond to its own mistakes — sending pills to women beyond the legal limit through a scheme for which it lobbied and from which it benefits — by trying to push for even more radical laws that minimise accountability.”
Lord Bailey also tabled an amendment to introduce a mandatory safeguarding investigation whenever an abortion is performed on a girl under the age of 16. He warned:
“I am very worried about the real-world consequences for young women in vulnerable situations where, when they are being coerced, their abusers would know that no investigation is even possible. No matter where you stand on the question of abortion, surely noble Lords can see that the most vulnerable young women should be protected by us in law.”
We’ll publish a fuller write-up tomorrow, but for now it is encouraging to see such strong opposition to these extreme decriminalisation proposals. This provides a solid basis for further challenges at Report Stage.
Thank you to everyone who has been writing to peers — it really is making a difference. Stay tuned for the next steps!
With best wishes,
|
|
