Latest news with #CrimeandPolicingBill
New Statesman
6 hours ago
- Politics
- New Statesman
There was a revolution in Britain this week. Didn't you notice?
Photo byThe result came in seconds before the 2.30pm deadline. In a sweltering Commons chamber, packed with far more people than you would expect on most days let alone on a Friday when MPs tend to be in their constituencies, the result was announced: by 314 votes to 291, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill had passed its third reading. While the majority for the Ayes was more than halved since the second reading in November, following bitter committee and report stages, assisted dying will now go the Lords, from whence it is highly likely to become law. It has been quite a week for social revolution, proving landmark change does not run on a linear timescale. The last big legislative shift of this nature was David Cameron's determination – in opposition to much of his own party – to legalise marriage for same-sex couples in 2013. Twelve years and four elections later, MPs' vote in favour of the assisted dying bill was the second time in a week parliamentarians chose to make fundamental changes on how the state relates to its citizens. On Tuesday, an amendment to the government's Crime and Policing Bill that would remove criminal penalties for women who terminate pregnancy beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks passed in the Commons by a majority of 242 votes. It is notable that neither of these changes are official policy of Keir Starmer's government. The assisted dying legislation has been brought through the House as a private members bill by Kim Leadbeater – much to the contention of opponents dismayed (indeed, outraged) at the lack of time and to debate it. The abortion amendment was put forward by Labour backbencher Tonia Antoniazzi (who is also, as it happens, a co-sponsor to Leadbeater's bill). Both were free votes, as matters of conscience are according to parliamentary convention. As Dr Kieran Mullan put it in his closing remarks for the opposition, on this issue of life and death MPs did not even have the line from the whips to advise their decision. They had to make up their own minds, with only their consciences – and a wealth of contradictory expert advice, personal stories and harrowing experiences – to guide them. Almost six decades ago, parliament was gripped by an even fiercer frenzy of social change. It is well-known that the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the legalisation of abortion occurred as part of the 'permissive society' reforms of Harold Wilson's 1966-70 government, which also included the relaxation of divorce law and the effective abolishing of the death penalty. In fact, they occurred not only in the same year, but the same month: July 1967. On a single day – Thursday 13 July – visitors to the public galleries of parliament would have been able to watch either MPs heatedly debating the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill for its report stage and third reading, or the Sexual Offences Bill passing its second reading in the House of Lords. Both of these reforms were spearheaded not by Wilson's government directly, but by individuals in the Commons and the Lords. The abortion legislation was a private members' bill by Liberal MP David Steel who has discussed the comparisons – and differences – with the current assisted dying bill. Decriminalising homosexuality was championed by Lord Arran, whose late brother was gay, then given parliamentary time by the government. (Lord Arran's other passion project was the protection of badgers. When asked why his efforts on badgers had failed to garner as much support as his crusade for the rights of homosexuals, he replied: 'Not many badgers in the House of Lords.') Both were also highly contentious, with public opinion deeply divided. 'I cannot stand homosexuals… Prison is much too good a place for them' was the view of the Earl of Dudley during a 1966 Lords debate on the subject. A 1965 Daily Mail poll found that, while 63 per cent of people did not think private homosexual acts between consenting adults should be a criminal offence, 93 per cent believed those involved required medical or psychiatric treatment. Attitudes to abortion depended on the justification, with support on health grounds or in the case of rape, but far more mixed views regarding financial reasons or the issue of personal choice. Outside of a very fringe minority, the idea of either of these progressive reforms being reversed today is unthinkable. Fast-forwarding four and a half decades, parliament again found itself progressing ahead of public opinion. In 2011 when David Cameron first intervened to ensure gay marriage was introduced within his first term as Prime Minister, just 43 per cent of the public supported it. By the time of the vote itself – a process critics regarded as 'undemocratic' as it had not been in the Conservative manifesto and relied on votes from the Labour and Liberal Democrat benches – that had risen to 54 per cent. Now, only a tiny minority oppose it. There currently are 75 LGBT MPs in parliament, across five parties, many of whom are married to their partners thanks for Cameron's reforms. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe In contrast, assisted dying has wider public support than it does in parliament: as was cited Friday's debate, 75 per cent of people support the principle of the terminally ill being able to choose to end their suffering, while 73 per cent support the actual bill. Parliament is in catch-up mode, which is no doubt one reason MPs have backed the move, despite serious concerns remaining about its impact. Of course, it is not the job of MPs to simply parrot public opinion. They are sent to parliament to represent their constituents by considering factors – legal, medical, societal – that those who elect them are freed from thinking about. This responsibility was the focus of Friday's debate, as MP after MP – from all corners of the Chamber – stood up to warn about potential unintended consequences. 'As parliamentarians, today we have to cast quite possibly one of the most consequential votes of our time in this place,' Liberal Democrat Munira Wilson cautioned the House. Conservative Tom Tugendhat called it 'a transformation in the way in which power lies', while Labour's Chi Onwurah echoed the words of many of her colleagues when she told the chamber: 'This is not your average bill. It fundamentally changes the relationship between state and citizen.' There were many more speeches opposing specific aspects of the bill: the insufficiency of safeguards; the potential for coercion; the risks to disabled people, those suffering with mental health conditions such as anorexia, and victims of domestic abuse; medical complications regarding the process itself; the concerns of professional bodies of doctors and psychiatrists; and issue of substandard palliative care – not to mention criticism of the committee and report stages and the lack of time to debate amendments. The link to the abortion vote of Tuesday was made both implicitly and directly. Lib Dem Sarah Olney talked of the 'settled consensus' on abortion provision since David Steel's bill, unchanged for 58 years until Tuesday, because of the work that had gone into it before the parliamentary stages to ensure a stable foundation. Labour's Jen Craft talked of being immediately offered a termination when medical professional discovered her unborn daughter would have Down Syndrome, warning 'We cannot legislate against discrimination'. This is not the first time parliament has considered shifting perspectives on how to value human life. It is not even the first time this week. On the other side came equally passionate arguments: on a status quo that is 'cruel' and 'unacceptable', beset with 'profound injustices'; on compassion, humanity, choice, and pain relief; on alleviating suffering and attempting to shorten death as opposed to shortening life, as the Roman philosopher Seneca would have put it. But anyone watching could not fail to notice that the pro speeches were significantly outnumbered – surprising, given the end result. Perhaps, with the numbers anticipated to come down on the side of passing the legislation, those against felt an even fiercer moral duty to get their objections on record at this final moment. One voice notably absent from the debate was that of the Prime Minister himself. A long-standing personal supporter of assisted dying, Keir Starmer has chosen to keep this process at arms-length throughout its passage. There were doubts as to whether he would even turn up on Friday. (He was in Canada for the G7 on Tuesday for the abortion vote – an absence that has fuelled criticism of a Prime Minister too detached to lead.) In the end, he made the journey from Downing Street to the Palace of Westminster, pausing his contemplation of the UK's response if the US decides to attack Iran in Downing Street to watch the closing speeches and walk through the Aye lobby. Moments beforehand, health minister Stephen Kinnock had closed the debate by assuring the House that 'should it be the will of Parliament for this legislation to pass, the government will ensure the safe, effective implementation of this service' – a promise that threw into stark relief the government's determination not to involve itself with this legislation. Kinnock was following Kieran Mullan summing up for the opposition benches, who had criticised the government for not providing more time on the floor of the House for such an important issue. When the history books cover Starmer's time in office, it is highly likely that assisted dying and the change it represents will be the cornerstone of his legacy. The consequences of this legislation are more far-reaching than Cameron's push for marriage equality – more significant, even, than the 1967 reforms to abortion and gay rights. We have examples from around the world of how assisting dying provision can expand; while Britain is behind some other countries on the trajectory, we have little way of anticipating the full consequences of this shift. In 2013, critics of same-sex marriage argued it was an assault on the family that would irreparably damage the foundations of society. For most people in the UK today, the objections from scarcely over a decade ago look patently ridiculous. But opinion polls can only tell us so much, and trends can go in more than one direction. Stark warnings were raised in the Commons on Friday – warnings that could well transpire to be Cassandra-like prophecies without the right legal, medical and societal frameworks. Failure in this regard will be considered – rightly – a failure of the Starmer government. Whether he intended it or not, this could end up being the defining week of Starmer's tenure as Prime Minister. [See more: Ed Miliband keeps winning] Related
Daily Mirror
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
Calls for crackdown on online 'megabrothels' and sex trafficking
MP Tonia Antoniazzi has called for a crackdown on 'online megabrothels' as she urged legislators to 'confront the adult sexual exploitation being perpetrated on an industrial scale' Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi has argued that buying a cappuccino is not the same as "ordering a woman online" for sex, as she called for a crackdown on "online megabrothels". She urged lawmakers to "confront the adult sexual exploitation being perpetrated on an industrial scale by pimping websites and men who pay for sex, both of whom currently enjoy near-total legal impunity". Antoniazzi proposed a new clause two to the Government's Crime and Policing Bill, which would prohibit a third party from assisting someone in engaging in sexual activity with another person in exchange for payment. She also advocated for a ban on individuals paying for sex, either for themselves or others, through a proposed new clause three. A new clause four would repeal parts of the 66-year-old Street Offences Act, so that "loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution" would no longer be considered a crime. "Pimping websites which function as massive online brothels operate openly and freely, supercharging the sex trafficking trade by making it easier and quicker for exploiters to advertise their victims," Ms Antoniazzi informed the Commons. The Gower MP continued: "These online megabrothels make millions of pounds every year by advertising thousands of vulnerable women across the world for prostitution in the UK, and sadly, our legislation allows this. 'Let's pass laws to put pimps and traffickers out of business' "The notion that paying someone for sex acts is a normal consumer activity, akin to ordering a coffee, is a damaging and misguided myth. Prostitution is a form of violence against women. Let's pass laws to put pimps and traffickers out of business." Ms Antoniazzi debunked another "myth", that a ban would drive "pimping" onto the dark web, telling MPs that accessing such platforms would "require significant technical expertise to post as well as locate and access prostitution adverts". Regarding her bid to decriminalise soliciting, the backbencher warned that the existing offence was "counter-productive and a barrier to seeking help and exiting this ruthless trade". She said: "For most of these women, their record of convictions is a record of their exploitation and abuse, and they live in fear of having to disclose this history when applying for jobs or volunteering." Ms Antoniazzi has already amended the Bill after she pressed new clause one to a vote on Tuesday. MPs backed her proposal by 379 votes to 137, majority 242, to decriminalise abortion for women acting in relation to their own pregnancies. Commons Home Affairs Committee chairwoman Dame Karen Bradley said she backed a plan to ban images and videos depicting non-fatal strangulation, by expanding the definition of "extreme pornographic images" which are illegal to possess. The former culture secretary and Conservative MP, Dame Karen, weighed in on the proposed new clause 121, stating: "This is not impacting on what people may wish to do in their private lives, but it does mean that those images would not then be available to be seen in pornographic films." She further highlighted the importance of protecting children, saying, "And it means that there's protection for children who may be looking at this pornography. We don't want them to look at it, but we're realists, we recognise this happens, and it would mean that this doesn't normalise something which is a really dangerous act and really should not be being promoted in any way." Dame Caroline Dinenage, chairwoman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the one who proposed the ban on certain images, expressed her concerns, saying: "We need to send a signal that strangling your partner in bed is not safe. It can be a precursor to coercive, abusive behaviour." 'UK is a large porn consumer - one in 10 children have seen it by the age of nine' She added context to the issue by mentioning the UK's consumption of adult content: "The UK, as we know, is a large porn consumer. In any given month, over 10 million adults in the UK will access online porn, and the vast majority of them will be chaps." Dame Caroline continued without judgement but with concern: "That's up to them. We don't judge. But we also know from research that online porn is so widespread that one in 10 children have seen it by the age of nine." Highlighting the potential influence of such content, she said, "Unfortunately, it is the guide that many young people use to learn about sex, and that is why I'm extremely worried that non-fatal strangulation has been found to be rife on porn sites. "Evidence has shown that it's directly influencing the sexual behaviour of young men, who are non-consensually strangling young women during consensual sex. Recent polling has suggested that 17% of 16 to 34-year-olds have been strangled without giving consent during consensual sex. We aren't being prudes in calling for this misogynistic act to be banned in online porn." Help us improve our content by completing the survey below. We'd love to hear from you!
Cosmopolitan
a day ago
- Cosmopolitan
A choking ban and ID checks: all the ways porn is changing in 2025 — and what needs to come next
It's a transformative time for pornography. Long gone are the days where explicit sexual content could only be found in the adult section of video stores. Now, porn is freely available at the click of a button — and it's not just limited to dedicated adult sites. Unsuspecting users are exposed to porn on social media platforms like X and Reddit, which are rife with X-rated content (but not so harshly regulated as porn sites). This easy accessibility means that the public are increasingly exposed to it at a younger age. Recent research shows that the average age in the UK that people first see explicit material online is 13. Concerningly, much of this material seems to depict violence, with a 2023 report finding that 79% of 18 to 21-year-olds who'd seen porn online had encountered videos portraying degrading acts, physical aggression, or sexual coercion. The effects of this have been much discussed in pop culture. In 2021, Billie Eilish famously revealed that she started having nightmares after being exposed to 'abusive' pornography from the age of 11. Meanwhile, the Netflix series Adolescence explored the consequences of young people having access to violent content online without the proper critical thinking skills to challenge certain acts, ideas, and attitudes. Beyond porn, young people are also increasingly exposed to non-consensual intimate content via terrifying 'nudify' apps and deepfake technology, which make it possible for any unsuspecting person (usually a woman) to be virtually stripped naked or superimposed into explicit videos and photos. All of this has led to a growing backlash against sexual content online — and a call for legislators to crack down on it. We can already see this happening in other counties. In Sweden, for example, live cam shows and custom-made pornographic content were banned last month. In the US, in light of age verification laws being introduced in certain US states (which critics say is a violation of privacy and a data risk), Pornhub is blocked in 17 states. Then, in May, a new bill was introduced aiming to criminalise pornography at a federal level, meaning, if passed, it could be banned across the whole of the US. And now the UK is following suit. It was already planned that from July, websites hosting pornographic content will have to run ID checks on users, but yesterday [18th June] it was confirmed that pornography depicting acts of strangulation will be made illegal in the UK, as per a government announcement. The amendment will be made to the Crime and Policing Bill — though there isn't yet a date for its implementation. The government's decision was made following an Independent Porn Review which found that media sources, including pornography, have 'effectively established choking as a 'sexual norm', and a belief that choking a partner during sex is 'safe''. This is, obviously, worrying, and it's encouraging that the government is trying to tackle the rise of non-consensual choking, which mostly affects women and girls. It's a move that's been welcomed by safety campaigners and women's charities alike, and generally viewed as a step in the right direction. But will these measures really work? Amid the dire state of sex education in the UK, is this the right focus? And, as right wing conservatism grows, is a crackdown on sexual expression actually moving us forward? Data shows sexual strangulation has been on the rise in recent years, and it seems explicit online depictions of it have contributed to this, particularly among young people. A recent survey by the Institute for Addressing Strangulation (IFAS) found that it's most common among those aged 16 to 34, with 35% of respondents saying they've been choked during sex, while 17% said it had happened without their consent. 'I've experienced choking from casual sex partners before, and not always with my consent,' 35-year-old Bryony* tells Cosmopolitan UK. 'I was having sex once with a hook-up from Hinge and he suddenly grabbed my throat. I was so shocked by it that I froze — I would have struggled to talk with his tight grip anyway. He realised by my facial expression that I was taken aback and soon let go. It was a frightening experience.' Erotic asphyxiation is a genuine sexual kink/fetish, but seems to be increasingly misunderstood and mispracticed by those who seemingly don't know what they're doing. It has also sinisterly been used as a defence in many murder trials, including the harrowing case of Grace Milane, whose killer claimed she had died as a result of choking during consensual sex. Following this trial, the 'rough sex gone wrong' defence was banned in the UK — a key step in acknowledging that women cannot consent to their own harm or murder. As mentioned, women's groups have voiced their support for the criminalisation of choking porn, with Andrea Simon, the director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, saying in a press release: 'Women cannot consent to the long-term harm [strangulation] can cause, including impaired cognitive functioning and memory. Its widespread portrayal in porn is fuelling dangerous behaviours, particularly among young people.' The availability of this kind of violent porn, and porn more broadly, is why the government is introducing its age verification laws next month, as part of the Online Safety Bill, which will force any websites or platforms (presumably including social media sites) that allow pornography to introduce effective age checks. This may include users providing their driver's license or passport, credit card details, or even agreeing to facial age estimation technology. It's unclear how exactly this will work in practice, and whether sites like Pornhub will simply block access in the UK, as they have done in the US, in light of the potential privacy risks. In a statement, digital rights campaigners Open Rights Group warned: 'The roll-out of age verification is likely to create new cybersecurity risks. This could take the form of more scam porn sites that will trick users into handing over personal data to 'verify their age'.' Although the ban is well-intentioned, it's easy to announce something but much harder to implement it in practice. 'In one regard, yes, it's a good idea to [stop people seeing] anything that is clearly harmful to women. But simply banning it isn't going to solve the problem,' says Marcus Johnstone, a criminal defence solicitor at PCD Solicitors. For one, Johnstone continues, 'you can ban lawful porn sites depicting non-fatal strangulation, but then what happens? It goes underground'. There's also the issue of who the liability falls to. 'Are they criminalising the makers, watchers, possessors of the image, [or the platforms that host them]? None of that is very clear,' adds Sean Caulfield, a partner in the crime team at Hodge Jones & Allen. There's no denying that something needs to be done about rising misogyny and violence against women and girls, including non-consensual choking. But what young people really need is comprehensive sex education, including porn literacy. Banning choking porn doesn't seek to tackle the true crux of the problem. Instead, we should be ensuring that all content young people can access on the internet is safe, and that the porn they are being exposed to is appropriately regulated. 'It's clear we need far more effective legislation to ensure online safety,' says Susie McDonald, the CEO of Tender, a charity that educates on healthy relationships. 'But equally critical is the need for all children and young people to access high quality relationships education so they can understand the key tenets of healthy relationships like consent and respect — and recognise the early warning signs of abuse. 'Right now, too many simply don't have access to this vital education,' she continues. 'RSHE needs to play a key role in keeping our young people safe, online and in the real world. We have a responsibility to protect all children as early as possible.' Implementing parameters of safety around online porn, especially for impressionable young people, is key — but so is ensuring they have a full understanding of things like consent, to be able to make appropriate decisions in their own personal lives. 'Adults need to be trusted to make adult choices, but that only works if they're equipped with context and critical thinking skills,' agrees Madelaine Thomas, senior policy advisor at the Digital Intimacy Coalition. 'Porn is entertainment, not education. It is fiction and should be enjoyed as such, not as an instructional guide. Porn shouldn't be used to educate unless it explicitly labels itself as such. The key is in educating that porn is fiction and filling the gap in education to teach so that they don't look to fiction as fact.' For some, strangulation kinks are genuine, and there will be people in consenting sexual relationships who choose to engage in such acts. There is already a law banning porn depicting graphic strangulation, and incoming age verification laws that should, in theory, prevent under 18s from viewing pornography of any kind. Depictions of strangulation shouldn't be freely accessible online, but the problem goes far beyond the porn young people are watching. We urgently need comprehensive sex education, media and porn literacy, and to encourage open, judgment-free conversations about sex, relationships, and consent. There also needs to be more funding for services that work to prevent violence against women and girls, a justice system that actually achieves justice for victims of sexual violence, and education that seeks to address the rise in misogyny among young people — and the real world effects that it has.
The National
a day ago
- Politics
- The National
Westminster is set to decriminalise abortion - what about Scotland?
Abortion is still a crime in Scotland, England and Wales, under legislation which was passed in 1967. But in the Commons this week, an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill will remove the threat of 'investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. It comes after several high-profile cases where women have been arrested for illegal abortion offences. In Scotland, while the same 1960s legislation applies, and sets a number of limitations on the circumstances that allow an abortion can be granted, campaigners have said there is less 'urgency' for decriminalisation to be brought in north of the border. READ MORE: Holyrood governing body defends 'unfair' trans toilet ban Rachel Clarke, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), explained: 'In England and Wales we've got underlying statute dating to the 1800s which is being used against women on a sort of semi-regular basis. 'More than 100 women have been investigated in recent years, six have ended up in court. There are also quite a few of those women who are still in the system awaiting a decision from prosecutors on whether their case is going to be taken to court. 'So for us, that change is very urgent and essential.' In one instance, Nicola Packer was taken to a police cell from hospital after delivering a still born baby at home. She had taken prescribed abortion medication at around 26 weeks pregnant, later telling jurors that she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than 10 weeks. The Westminster legislation, while decriminalising women, does not change the law relating to the provision of abortion services - such as the requirement to be approved by two doctors. Clarke explained that there hadn't been the same levels of criminalisation in Scotland, mostly due to the existence of common law that isn't 'used against women in the same way' as the Westminster statute. 'Because Scotland doesn't have that urgent problem, the work that we've been doing up there and that Back Off Scotland has been doing up there, has been about trying to do wholesale reform of the law as the first thing,' Clarke explained. 'To deal with the issues that we've got, but also to support some of the work that's going on around improved access, particularly at later gestations.' 'The most urgent thing in Scotland at the moment is the lack of services post 20 weeks.' READ MORE: Israel accused of 'hypocrisy' after calling hospital strike 'war crime' Abortions are permitted until 24 weeks under the current law, but if a woman in Scotland requires one after 20 weeks, they have to travel to England for specialist care. The Scottish Greens have recently called for abortion to be decriminalised in Scotland, but with the clock counting down to the Holyrood elections in 2026, there is little time on the parliamentary agenda to get legislation scrutinised and passed. The power to update the law on abortion was devolved to the Scottish Parliament in 2016. There has been ample time to tackle the issue. In January, Scottish Labour MSP Carol Mochan asked the Scottish Government when it plans to review the current legal framework on abortion. Women's health minister Jenni Minto pointed to a commitment made by Scottish Government ministers in the 2023 programme for government to review the law. An expert group is due to send a report to ministers in the summer, but she notes that 'proposals for changes to abortion law would be subject to a public consultation'. With the topic of abortion likely to spark a heated debate, it will undoubtedly be a lengthy, contentious process, whatever the expert group suggests. It is clear that the current law is outdated and crying out for reform - but with the aforementioned tight deadline for Holyrood legislation, it could be a long time until Scotland modernises the law on abortion.
STV News
a day ago
- Politics
- STV News
Letter urges Police Scotland to reject 'misogynistic' pregnancy loss investigations
A letter signed by 29 campaign groups has urged Police Scotland to reject 'misogynistic' guidelines that would allow officers to search grieving women for abortion drugs. Women's rights groups, abortion care providers, healthcare bodies, human rights organisations, and trade unions have signed a letter that condemns the UK National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) new guidance on child death investigation. The new guidance allows police to investigate any pregnancy loss, and advises officers to search for 'drugs that can terminate pregnancy' in cases involving stillbirths. This includes allowing searches of mothers' mobile phones if a baby dies unexpectedly in the womb, as well as accessing medical records without a court order. It comes after legislation that would see abortion decriminalised for women terminating their own pregnancies in England and Wales cleared the Commons. MPs voted 312 to 95, majority 217 to approve the Crime and Policing Bill at third reading on Wednesday. With the child death investigation legislation currently only regarding England and Wales, a group of 29 leading civil society and health organisations has written to Chief Constable Jo Farrell, calling on Police Scotland to publicly reject the controversial guidelines. STV News Police Scotland Chief Constable Jo Farrell has been urged to reject the guidelines. Anti-sexist organisation Engender, which coordinated the letter, calls on the force not to follow the 'deeply intrusive investigations' and instead 'bring the law into the 21st century'. Catherine Murphy, executive director, said: 'Women now find themselves in the perilous situation where the laws governing abortion in Scotland have not kept up with advancements like abortion medicines and reproductive tracking apps. 'Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Scottish Parliament need to act urgently to end the scope for prosecutions and bring the law into the 21st century.' The letter also warns that marginalised communities – including those in poverty, women of colour, disabled women, migrants, young women, LBT+ people, and those in rural areas – would be disproportionately impacted by such investigations. It also reveals that data published last year found that police in Scotland have pursued several abortion related cases in the previous two decades. 'Police Scotland has a choice,' said Jill Wood, Policy Manager at Engender. 'They can follow the lead of health experts and human rights bodies, or they can adopt guidance that will cause demonstrable harm to women in Scotland. We urge them to choose compassion over criminalisation.' Dr Ranee Thakar, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said any investigations are 'not in the public's best interest'. She said: 'We are very alarmed by the increasing number of women being prosecuted for ending their own pregnancy, including women who have experienced the tragedy of an unexplained pregnancy loss being criminally investigated. 'This is not in the public's best interest. 'The new National Police Chiefs' Council guidance is truly shocking to read. Women in these circumstances have a right to compassionate care and to have their dignity and privacy respected, not to have their homes, phones, computers and health apps searched, or be arrested and interrogated. 'Parliamentarians now have an unmissable opportunity to decriminalise abortion, to ensure women can access abortion safely, confidentially and free from the threat of investigation and prosecution.' Abortion Rights vice chair Judith Orr said: 'It is truly horrifying that women who have suffered the trauma of pregnancy loss are being treated like criminals, with no regard for their right to privacy over their reproductive health. These invasive police actions are being justified by legislation from 1861 – a time when women had no legal autonomy, let alone the right to vote. Signatories to the letter include Engender, Abortion Rights Scotland, Young Women's Movement, Back Off Scotland, Humanist Society Scotland, Close the Gap, Scottish Women's Convention, Scottish Women's Budget Group, Zero Tolerance, Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Abortion Care Providers Network, Faculty for Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare Scotland, Amnesty International UK, Scottish Women's Aid, Royal College of Midwives, STUC, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Equality Network, Scottish Trans, Equate Scotland, Human Rights Consortium Scotland, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Women's Enterprise Scotland, Liberty, Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights, Amma Birth Companions, NUS Scotland, Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland (the ALLIANCE), Inclusion Scotland. Police Scotland has been contacted for comment. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
