Thank you for contacting me about abortion law.
As with other matters of conscience, the Government adopts a neutral stance on abortion and allows Conservative MPs to vote freely according to their moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.
Down Syndrome and New Clause 34: Amendment to Criminal Justice Bill
This new clause would introduce an upper gestational limit for abortions of foetuses with Down syndrome equal to the upper gestational limit for most other abortions. I fully support this amendment and will be voting in favour.
As a matter of fundamental respect for the human person and because of advances in medical science and approaches to care, I see no reason why Down Syndrome babies should not have the same protection in law as other unborn babies.
Decriminalising Abortion (NC1)
Dame Diana Johnson is the MP proposing this amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill. In part, her explanation is that “This new clause would disapply existing criminal law related to the accessing or procurement of abortion care from women acting in relation to their own pregnancy at any gestation, ensuring no woman would be liable for a prison sentence as a result of seeking to end her own pregnancy. It would not change any law regarding the provision of abortion services within a healthcare setting, including but not limited to the time limit, the grounds for abortion, or the requirement for two doctors’ approval.”
I oppose NC1 and its proposals for the so-called 'decrimininalisation' of abortion. The implications of such a move would be many wide ranging and serious; in my view, they are likely to be overwhelmingly harmful, not least to women, especially women who find themselves dealing with abusive and controlling men. Among my concerns are the following:
- abortions could be carried out for any reason, including the baby's sex. In some communities, unborn girls would be at particular risk
- as Dame Diana's explanation makes clear, the existing time limit would only apply to abortion carried out in healthcare settings. More than half of abortions now take place at home, including via so-called telemedicine, and these would not be covered by the time limit requirement; thus, decriminalisation as proposed in NC1 would allow abortion up to birth. The danger this poses to the physical and mental health of women should be clear. Moreover, it would weaken the existing protections for women in danger at the hands of abusive and controlling men. I do not believe that unborn babies who could survive given a normal delivery should have no legal protection
- the charge that decriminalisation would protect men who coerce women into abortion or who seek to hide the reasons for the pregnancy seems borne out by the Metropolitan Police figures for prosecutions for the ten years up to 2022: of 42 people arrested, eight were women and the rest were men; of the seven arrests that led to charges, all were men
- the increase in prosecutions of women this year needs to be set in context: I understand there have been five at a time when there are over 200,000 abortions in the UK annually (25% of all pregnancies). Moreover, this is explained largely by the growth in at-home abortions ('pills by post') and the evidence that some women sent such pills are doing so beyond the ten-week legal limit imposed for this kind of abortion procedure - very possibly because they have been left little choice by abusive men or other family members
- campaigners have raised the issue of investigations of miscarriages. While no-one would wish to add to the trauma of a miscarriage, I understand that these investigations concerned girls who are minors and whose circumstances raised serious safeguarding concerns. #
Abortion on Demand (NC40)
NC 40 is being proposed by Stella Creasy MP. It has many of the same problems as Diana Johnson's proposed new clause (see above). I oppose it.
The amendment (NC40) proposes making the biggest changes to abortion laws since the Abortion Act was introduced in 1967.
The proposed change to the law would make it more likely that healthy babies are aborted at home for any reason, up to birth, by removing key deterrents against performing an abortion at any point right through to birth.
The amendment would remove the possibility of custodial sentences for abortions after 24 weeks and by not suggesting any meaningful alternative sanctions, the amendment would remove a key deterrent against late-term abortions.
The amendment would also require the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) personally to approve prosecutions of women or abortion providers who perform abortions after the legal limit up to birth. This would introduce an extra hurdle before prosecutions can take place, which may deter police investigations, making abortions up to birth more likely. It would also likely lead to unreasonable pressure being placed on the DPP.
These changes to the law would likely lead to a significant increase in the number of women performing late-term abortions at home, endangering the lives of many more women.
They would also likely lead to an increased number of viable babies’ lives being ended well beyond the 24-week abortion time limit and beyond the point at which they would be able to survive outside the womb.
Infanticides: Stella Creasy’s amendment would remove key deterrents against hiding the body of a dead baby included in Section 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Section 60 makes it an offence to conceal the birth of a child by hiding the dead body of a child after its birth, including in circumstances when the baby has been killed through infanticide. This law change could make it easier to cover up infanticides.
Removing a series of key safeguards provided by the Abortion Act: The amendment would also remove a series of key safeguards provided by the Abortion Act through to 24 weeks.
It proposes making this law change by removing offences for women and doctors committed under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act (ILPA) through to 24 weeks.
As the Abortion Act was passed to create exemptions to sections 58 and 59 of the OAPA and the ILPA, removing such offences committed under sections 58 and 59 of the OAPA and the ILPA would make key safeguards provided by the Abortion Act 1967 redundant through to 24 weeks.
This means abortion would be available on demand, for any reason up to 24 weeks.
If the proposal becomes law, sex-selective abortion would become legal in England and Wales. Sex-selective abortion usually targets baby girls due to a preference among certain parents and some cultures for having sons. The Government maintains that, under our current legislation, abortion on the grounds of the sex of the baby is illegal because it is “not one of the lawful grounds for termination of pregnancy” set out in the Abortion Act, which stipulates that abortion can only be performed under specific grounds.
Under the proposed law change, the Abortion Act and the grounds under which abortion is permitted would effectively be made redundant up to 24 weeks, allowing abortion on demand, for any reason, including sex-selective abortion.
Section 1(3) of the Abortion Act restricts abortion to hospitals or places approved by the Secretary of State. Without this safeguard, there would be no legal restrictions on places where abortions could be performed up to 24 weeks.
The amendment would also result in there being no legal requirement that abortions take place under the care of a qualified doctor. Currently, the Abortion Act requires that an abortion takes place under the care of a registered medical practitioner (qualified doctor) who leads or directs the abortion process.
Under the proposed law change, there would also be no legal requirement that two qualified doctors certify an abortion. Section 1(1) of the Abortion Act requires two registered medical practitioners (doctors) to certify that an abortion is legal and is being performed under one of the grounds set out in the Abortion Act. Without this safeguard, there would be no legal requirement that two doctors certify an abortion up to 24 weeks.
Restoring In-person Appointments
I opposed the introduction of at-home abortion procedures, fearing that it would leave women exposed to a wide range of health, safety and personal risks. I am particularly concerned that women who do not consult in person with healthcare professionals are much less likely to receive a full health assessment or have the opportunity to discuss in depth the range of possible options open to them. On a number of fronts, the most serious worries involve
- abortions taking place after the time limit
- the impossibility of regulation
- increased vulnerability to coercion and abuse
- serious health complications.
I note that surveys show large majorities of women taking the view that consultations about abortion should be in person, in particular to ensure that the women seeking abortions are not at risk. I have not seen any reason to suppose that these concerns are not valid.
Lowering the Abortion Time Limit to 22 Weeks (NC15)
I take very seriously the concerns expressed that recent advances in the care of babies born early mean that the current time limit (24 weeks in most cases) is resulting in abortions being carried out on babies who would have a realistic chance of survival if born early. Before committing myself to supporting such a change, I do want to take a good look at the scientific and medical evidence underpinning the case being made for it.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Craig Whittaker MP
April 2024