Radical change to abortion laws threatens unintended consequences
Women will no longer be criminally liable for terminations after 24 weeks
ALISHIA ABODUNDE/GETTY IMAGES
W hen Lord Steel introduced the 1967 Abortion Act, the Liberal MP eloquently explained why: 'I believe that a strong argument for bringing forward the bill at this time is that there has been a growing tide of public opinion in favour of such a change.' It was debated for well over a year and endured scrutiny from a special advisory committee to ensure the medical profession was happy. It was backed by the Labour government and received support across party lines. Few would suggest that it became law haphazardly.
The same, sadly, cannot be said for an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which was passed by a majority of 242 votes in the Commons on Tuesday evening. In the biggest shake-up to abortion laws in almost six decades, sanctions for women who pursue late-term abortions will be repealed. The law presently states that abortion is illegal, yet admissible during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, or in certain extreme circumstances. This is one of the most liberal regimes in the West. But thanks to the impromptu efforts of Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour MP for Gower, a woman who terminates a pregnancy after 24 weeks will no longer be criminally liable in any way.
Abortions after 20 weeks make up just 0.1 per cent of all cases, and the numbers of those actually prosecuted are small. But the evidence and experience from other nations who have pursued a decriminalisation approach are clear: it will lead to an increase in late-term abortions. Any woman who aborts her baby at any point in her pregnancy, up to the day before its birth, will be free from criminal sanction. Even the most ardent advocate of a women's right to choose must see that this change risks a host of unintended consequences. While women considering ultra-late termination must be regarded with the greatest understanding and sympathy, the possibility of a viable child being killed shortly before its birth is not a prospect to be treated lightly.
• MPs vote to decriminalise abortion
There has been no great public clamour for this change. Unlike in the United States, abortion has not become a dividing line between left and right. Yet, such is the extreme nature of Ms Antoniazzi's amendment that it risks creating a political fissure. The split in the Commons vote is illustrative: all but four Conservative MPs voted against the amendment, as did four out of five Reform UK MPs. Nigel Farage, Reform's leader, was absent.
There are lessons from this episode. One is the continuing effect of the pandemic, during which abortion pills were posted to women up to ten weeks into a pregnancy. This may have been necessary when contact with a doctor was impossible, but it resulted in some women falsely claiming to be under ten weeks when they were later in their terms. Ms Antoniazzi's amendment means this ebhaviour could become more widespread.
The biggest issue, however, is a total lack of leadership. Sir Keir Starmer was not present for the vote due to the G7 summit in Canada. Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, was also absent but made it known she was against the change. The result is that one of the most significant social reforms of the century so far has been passed after barely two hours of debate and with no direction from the government of the day. It was a conscience vote but a hugely significant one. If this amendment results in perverse outcomes the government will have only itself to blame.
This laxity by ministers on a major issue is mirrored in the deeply flawed assisted dying legislation which is due to receive its third reading tomorrow. It is likely to sail through the Commons with the tacit support of a prime minister who has again shrunk from investing his political capital in a sensitive issue. This ministerial vacuum is filled by activist Labour backbenchers intent on promoting their own social agendas. The potential for unintended consequences is all too clear.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
PETER HITCHENS: MPs have voted to destroy even more unborn babies - and to begin the abortion of the old
Are we ruled by some sort of death cult? In just one week, our Parliament has voted for the even more ruthless destruction of unborn babies, and to begin the abortion of the inconvenient old and ill. You may be quite sure that the abortion of the old, once it gets into full swing, will solve a lot of problems for the middle-aged, afraid of nursing home fees and of losing their inheritances. Does anyone really doubt this?
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Hope for end to ‘cruel experiment' of indefinite jail terms that have seen phone thieves trapped for up to 20 years
Desperate prisoners who have been trapped in jail for up to 20 years for minor offences such as stealing a mobile phone could finally get a release date under landmark new proposals. Britain's leading justice experts have issued a string of recommendations to finally end the 'cruel experiment' of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) jail terms, which have left inmates languishing in prison for up to 22 times longer than their original sentence. A panel led by Lord John Thomas, who was once Britain's most senior judge, convened by the Howard League for Penal Reform, will urge the government on Monday to take 'long overdue' action to restore hope to 2,614 inmates still trapped under the outlawed jail terms, which have been described as a 'monstrous blot' on our justice system. IPP jail terms were abolished in 2012, but not retrospectively, leaving those already jailed incarcerated indefinitely. Victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been highlighted by The Independent, include Leroy Douglas, who has served almost 20 years for stealing a mobile phone; Thomas White, 42, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, 41, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. Successive governments have refused justice committee recommendations to resentence them, despite recognising the jail term was a mistake. At least 94 IPP prisoners have taken their lives in custody as they lost hope of being freed, with a further 37 self-inflicted deaths among those released but left living in fear of being hauled back to jail indefinitely for minor breaches of strict licence conditions. On Monday, the expert panel will set out six recommendations to the Ministry of Justice to finally give those languishing in prison a release date and end the cycle of recall. Lord Thomas told The Independent: 'We must not go on perpetuating this injustice.' The proposals would see: Every IPP prisoner given a release date at their next review by the Parole Board within a two-year window, with plans to prepare them to be safely freed Decisions to recall IPP prisoners only made as a last resort, with independent scrutiny by a district judge or senior parole board member Mental health aftercare support for every released IPP prisoner, in recognition of the harms caused by the sentence The government has said ministers will 'carefully consider' the recommendations. In the 25-page report, due to be presented at an event in parliament, Lord Thomas warns: 'It is long overdue for those whose lives continue to be blighted by this sentence to be released from its clutches. 'There are only two options given the government's rejection of resentencing: (1) do nothing new and let those subject to IPPs continue with the real risk that many will languish in prison until they die; or (2) adopt our proposals. 'Our proposals provide a route to ending this grave injustice while protecting the public.' The member of the House of Lords, who served as lord chief justice from 2013 to 2017, believes the 'practical solutions' could be the last chance to help those on the jail term, which has been condemned as 'psychological torture' by the UN. Despite agreeing that the sentences are a 'terrible stain', Labour's prisons minister James Timpson has repeatedly said the government will not resentence IPP prisoners because it would result in serious offenders being released automatically without licensed supervision. Instead, the government has urged prisoners to work towards release by the Parole Board through the refreshed IPP Action Plan. However, Lord Thomas believes the measure is 'not enough' and it will leave some desperate inmates stuck in prison for the rest of their lives. He said it is 'absolutely clear' that without action, many will resign themselves to lifelong institutionalisation or take their own lives. Urging the state to take responsibility for its own mistakes, he insisted 'enough is enough', noting that if these prisoners had committed their crime a day after the sentence was abolished, they would have long been freed. 'It is time to address this problem in the way we have set out, which produces justice and minimises risk as much as possible,' added the judge, who last year backed The Independent's campaign to review IPP sentences. Andrea Coomber KC, chief executive of the Howard League, described the jail term as a 'cruel experiment' that has been perpetrated upon these prisoners by accident. Even the architect of the flawed 99-year sentence, Labour's former home secretary David Blunkett, has described it as the 'biggest regret' of his career. 'I spend a lot of time visiting people in prisons, I have met people who aren't engaged in IPP forums, who have given up hope,' Ms Coomber told The Independent. 'They have settled into the idea that they are going to die in prison. That is a monstrous blot on our justice system that people would feel that justice has let them down that much.' By ensuring they would get a release date, those prisoners would re-engage with the Parole Board and the steps for their rehabilitation, she added. 'Fundamentally, it will be a way to restore hope to people who have lost all hope, while protecting the public,' she said. It will also have the 'happy side effect' of freeing up a lot of prison places as the government grapples with an overcrowding crisis, she added. In April, The Independent revealed that incarcerating IPP inmates cost taxpayers £145m in 2024, on top of an estimated £1.6bn spent since the sentence was abolished. Any cost to implementing the changes would be 'more than covered' by the savings of releasing them, the report said. Other proposals from the panel, which also comprised a retired High Court judge and vice-chair of the Parole Board, leading forensic psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, legal experts and a former IPP prisoner, would see those handed indeterminate sentences when they were children (known as DPP jail terms) given a release date within one year of their parole review. They have also called for an enhanced process for people to appeal their IPP sentence, the right for annual licence termination reviews in the community and the ability for IPP jail terms to become 'spent' after an appropriate period. Currently, those who serve an IPP sentence must disclose information about their conviction for life, which can be 'hugely stigmatising' as they try to rebuild their lives and find work, Ms Coomber said. Campaigner Shirley DeBono, whose son Shaun Lloyd has spent 14 years behind bars after multiple recalls for stealing a mobile phone in 2005, welcomed the proposed measures. 'I think it's a great idea. I urge Shabana Mahmood [justice secretary] and James Timpson to take the proposals on,' said the mother, who co-founded the IPP Committee in Action. A spokesperson for the United Group for Reform of IPP (Ungripp) said that while it will always push for a full resentencing process, it supports the measures. 'We hope that the government will seriously consider these alternatives and give back some hope to those who are in prison either on recall or who have never been released,' they added. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'It is right that IPP sentences were abolished, and we will carefully consider the recommendations in this report. 'We are determined to make progress towards safe and sustainable releases for those in prison, but not in any way that undermines public protection.'
Times
29 minutes ago
- Times
Cost of damage by Palestine Action could hit £55m
Activists from Palestine Action are feared to have cost the government and firms making equipment for the British military as much as £55 million. In a five-year campaign Palestine Action has conducted 356 attacks on sites across the UK, culminating in a raid on RAF Brize Norton last week in which two Voyager aircraft were damaged. The attacks have cost the defence industry at least £30 million, according to evidence submitted to the government by several firms that have been affected. But it is also feared that one engine of a plane attacked at Brize Norton is damaged beyond repair and could cost £25 million to replace. While the extent of the damage is still being investigated, it is feared that red paint sprayed in to the turbine of the engine may mean it cannot be safely used again. Other costs are believed to cover repairs to warehouses, research facilities and factories, lost working time from the disruption, and the extra security the firms have been forced to invest in to ward off criminal activity by Palestine Action. The firms have also warned the Ministry of Defence that the group's activities have now extended to smaller firms in their supply chains, which will struggle to afford extra security and repairs. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, is set to proscribe Palestine Action on Monday, but an influential group of peers wants the law toughened to make it easier for the police to stop all kinds of 'organisations which cause destruction'. There have been growing concerns about the ability of the police to combat extreme protest groups such as Palestine Action. Lord Walney, the government's former extremism adviser, will table an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently making its way through the House of Lords, to give the police more powers to stop the activities of groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Youth Demand. An investigation by The Sunday Times in March revealed how activists had switched between protest groups which were also sharing tactics. If implemented the new law would restrict a group's ability to fundraise and its right to assembly in the UK. It could stop them posting on social media and live-streaming actions that they take. An extreme protest group would be defined as an organisation which routinely uses criminal tactics to try to achieve its aims. Although Palestine Action will be proscribed under existing terror laws, Walney's peers believe a new legal mechanism is required to tackle extreme political, environmental and animal rights groups 'who fall just below the threshold of being terrorist organisations'. His 'criminal protest proscription' amendment would represent a major overhaul in how such groups are policed in the UK. Walney plans to table the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which has reached the House of Lords, in coming weeks. 'The police need new powers to be able to tackle and disrupt extreme protest groups like Palestine Action, who have been allowed to cause mayhem and destruction for the past five years,' Walney said. 'Many of these groups fall just below the threshold required to be considered a terrorist organisation. We need a new mechanism to help police disrupt these extreme protests which are causing real harm to hundreds of businesses across the country.' • Melanie Phillips: Palestine Action is a terrorist group, so ban it His proposal is expected to have support from up to 42 peers who have this weekend signed a letter sent to Cooper asking for a meeting to discuss how to 'prevent or disrupt further attacks'. The letter, signed by peers including Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, a former assistant head of MI6; Baroness Berger, a prominent Jewish peer; Lord Evans of Sealand, a former Labour general secretary; and Lord Cryer, the former chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, says that Palestine Action has been allowed to carry out a 'sustained aggressive broad campaign that undermines the rule of law and Britain's national security'. Research by The Sunday Times reveals there have been 356 direct actions on British-based defence and engineering firms, banks, insurance companies, estate agents and property companies, accountancy firms, universities and local government buildings owing to alleged links to Israel. Some 118 Palestine Action activists were convicted of criminal offences between 2020 and 2024 for attacks on British-based companies linked to Israel, with 33 found not guilty of offences at trial. There are 17 trials continuing relating to direct action protests by Palestine Action. John Healey, the defence secretary, said he was 'really disturbed' by the breach of RAF Brize Norton and has ordered an investigation and wider security review. Counterterrorism police officers are investigating the incident, with Thames Valley police and the Ministry of Defence police. A Palestine Action spokesman said: 'Despite publicly condemning the Israeli government, Britain continues to send military cargo, fly spyplanes over Gaza and refuel US and Israeli fighter jets.'
