Press release – Over 1,000 medical professionals urge MPs to oppose abortion up to birth amendments

PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Over 1,000 medical professionals urge MP to oppose abortion up to birth amendments

Over 1,000 medical professionals have called on MPs to oppose two abortion up to birth amendments that have been tabled to the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill.

In a letter to all 650 MPs, the medical professionals have urged MPs to reject two extreme amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled by Stella Creasy (NC20) and Tonia Antoniazzi (NC1), and to instead reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional prior to an abortion taking place at home, as proposed by Dr Caroline Johnson’s amendment (NC106).

Polling published this week shows widespread public support for the law change proposed by Dr Caroline Johnson’s amendment, with two-thirds of women supporting the reinstatement of in-person appointments and only 4% in favour of the status quo.

NC1, tabled by Tonia Antoniazzi, would change the law so it would no longer be illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, and at any point up to and during birth, likely leading to a significant increase in the number of women performing dangerous late-term abortions at home.

NC20, tabled by Stella Creasy, would render the 24-week time limit set out in section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 obsolete, permitting both women and abortion providers to perform abortions on demand, for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, at any stage, up to birth.

Further information on the effect of both amendments is available in the notes section at the end of the press release. 

The full text of the letter from medical professionals to MPs and ministers reads:

We are writing as medical professionals to express our grave concerns with Tonia Antoniazzi and Stella Creasy’s amendments (New Clauses 1 and 20¹) to the Crime and Policing Bill that would change the law so it would no longer be illegal for women to administer their own abortions right through to birth. Instead of supporting these amendments, we urge MPs to protect women by reinstating in-person appointments before abortion pills may be prescribed in order to accurately assess a woman’s gestational age, health risks and the risk of coercion.

If offences that make it illegal for a woman to administer her own abortion at any gestation were repealed, such abortions would, de facto, become possible up to birth for any reason including abortions for sex-selective purposes, as women could, mistakenly, knowingly or under coercion, mislead abortion providers about their gestational age. If either of these amendments were to become law, it would also likely lead to serious risks to women’s health because of the dangers involved with self-administered late abortions.

A November 2023 government review of abortion complications in England from 2017 to 2021 found that the complication rate for medical abortions that happen in a clinical setting is 160 times higher for abortions at 20 weeks and over compared with medical abortions under 10 weeks.² The complication rate is likely to be far higher for women administering their own abortions at home without medical supervision well beyond the current 24-week time limit. 

Quite aside from the increased number of viable babies’ lives being ended beyond the 24-week time limit, there would likely be a significant increase in such complications if Tonia Antoniazzi or Stella Creasy’s amendments were to pass as they would remove any legal deterrent against women administering their own abortions late in pregnancy. The current law permits flexibility and compassion where necessary but, for these reasons, we believe a legal deterrent remains important.

Rather than making matters worse by passing this amendment, as medical professionals, we, the undersigned, call on MPs to vote against New Clauses 1 and 20. We also urge Parliament to reinstate in-person appointments before women may be prescribed abortion pills in order to accurately assess their gestational age and health. This is an important part of safeguarding (to protect against coerced abortion) and would enable healthcare professionals to ensure that abortion pills are only prescribed in cases when it is both medically and legally compliant to do so.

¹ HC, ‘Crime and Policing Bill (Amendment Paper)’, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0235/amend/crime_policing_rm_rep_0609.pdf.

² Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, ‘Complications from abortions in England, 2017 to 2021’, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/complications-from-abortions-in-england-2017-to-2021.

Regarding the two abortion up to birth amendments (NC20 and NC1), Right To Life UK spokesperson, Catherine Robinson, said:

“These are both extreme and inhumane changes to the law that polling shows are not supported by women”.

“Stella Creasy’s amendment would result in the time limit being scrapped and abortion will be available on demand, for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, up to birth”. 

“Tonia Antoniazzi’s amendment would change the law so it would no longer be illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason, and at any point up to and during birth, likely leading to a significant increase in the number of women performing dangerous late-term abortions at home”.

“The abortion lobby is pushing to decriminalise abortion to cover up the disastrous effects of its irresponsible pills by post scheme, which endangers women by removing the requirement for in-person consultations to reliably verify a woman’s gestational age and assess any health risks or the risk of coercion before abortion pills may be prescribed”.

Regarding Dr Caroline Johnson’s amendment (NC106), Right To Life UK spokesperson, Catherine Robinson, said:

“The controversial amendment that made at-home abortions permanent passed by a razor-thin margin of just 27 votes. A large number of MPs raised serious concerns about the negative impact these schemes would have on women”. 

“Since then, we have seen these concerns tragically borne out. Women such as Carla Foster have performed at-home abortions well beyond the 24-week time limit, putting their health at serious risk. Had Carla Foster been given an in-person consultation, where her gestation could have been accurately determined, she would not have been able to access abortion pills, and this tragic case would have been prevented”.

“The solution is clear. We urgently need to reinstate in-person appointments. This simple safeguard would prevent women’s lives from being put at risk from self-administered late-term abortions, a danger that would be exacerbated if abortion were ‘decriminalised’ right up to birth”.

Dr Caroline Johnson MP said:

“Since its introduction, the safeguarding risks caused by the ‘pills by post’ scheme have been evident, with one man able to obtain pills by a third party to induce a woman to have an abortion against her will or knowledge, and other women taking the pills later in pregnancy, in some cases because they were mistaken about their gestation, putting themselves in danger”. 

“Women would continue to be able to take abortion pills at home but, in line with public support, my amendment would reinstate prior in-person consultations so medical professionals are able to accurately assess a woman’s gestational age, any health risks and the risk of coercion before abortion pills can be prescribed”.

“This would protect women and prevent further cases of coerced or dangerous abortions arising as a result of the pills by post scheme”.

ENDS

• For additional quotes and media interviews contact press@righttolife.org.uk or 07774 483 658.
• For further information on Right To Life UK visit www.righttolife.org.uk

Further information

• Dr Caroline Johnson’s amendment – NC106
  • Amendment NC106, tabled by a large group of 40 MPs from six parties, led by Dr Caroline Johnson MP, would reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional prior to an abortion taking place at home.
    • Polling published this week shows widespread public support for the law change, with two-thirds of women supporting the reinstatement of in-person appointments and only 4% in favour of the status quo. 
    • The amendment (NC106) has been signed by a cross-party group of over 40 MPs from six parties including former leader of the Conservative Party and cabinet minister Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Reform UK Deputy Leader Richard Tice, former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, former health minister Neil O’Brien, Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh, chairman of the Conservative 1922 Committee Bob Blackman, former Labour Opposition Whip Mary Glindon and former Health and Social Care Select Committee member, and Labour shadow minister, Rachael Maskell.
  • This amendment would protect women by ensuring they have an in-person consultation with a medical professional before they could take abortion pills at home. This would enable an accurate assessment, in person, of any likely health risks for a woman taking abortion pills, her gestational age and the possibility of a coerced abortion.
    • Women would continue to be able to have a medical abortion at home, but with the vital safeguards that come with an in-person consultation.  

• Stella Creasy’s amendment – NC20
  • NC20 tabled by Stella Creasy would render the 24-week time limit set out in section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 obsolete, permitting abortion providers to perform abortions on demand, for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, at any stage, up to birth.
    • This effect of the amendment has been confirmed in a legal opinion by Stephen Rose KC, a leading criminal barrister, which was commissioned by Sir Edward Leigh, the Father of the House.
    • The Creasy amendment is so extreme, that the UK’s largest abortion provider, and main campaigner for liberalising abortion laws, has come out and publicly opposed the amendment after receiving its own legal opinion on the amendment.
    • In a briefing circulated to MPs, BPAS outlines that a legal opinion from another leading KC confirms that NC20 would “largely render the Abortion Act 1967 obsolete” and “create a regulatory lacuna around abortion provision and access”.
  • NC20 would repeal sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act (ILPA).
    • As the Abortion Act 1967 was passed to create exemptions to sections 58 and 59 of the OAPA and the ILPA, repealing sections 58 and 59 of the OAPA and the ILPA would make key safeguards provided by the Abortion Act 1967, including the 24-week time limit, redundant throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
    • Although the amendment seeks to amend the Abortion Act in order to maintain certain provisions within it, these provisions would not have any remaining legal force or basis if the underlying laws to which the Abortion Act relates have been repealed.
    • In addition, subsection (9) of the amendment prevents any future government from using regulations to reintroduce the 24-week limit. Once removed, such limits could only be reinstated through new primary legislation.
  • The amendment would also render the statutory grounds set out in section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 obsolete. Sex-selective abortion would become legal – women could obtain, and abortion providers could perform, abortions for sex-selective purposes at any stage of pregnancy up to birth.
    • NC20 would also remove the legal safeguard for two doctors to certify an abortion and restrictions, designed to safeguard women, on where abortions could be performed. It would also mean there would be no legal deterrent against women performing their own abortions at home using abortion pills up to birth, beyond the current 10-week legal limit for at-home abortions. This would gravely endanger women’s health because of the increased risks associated with taking abortion pills without a prior in-person appointment after the current 10-week limit.
    • NC20 would also repeal Section 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, removing key deterrents against hiding the body of a dead baby. 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. Section 60 is important in stopping individuals from preventing an investigation into the cause of a child’s death when infanticide is suspected. This could make it harder for police to investigate abortions that take place as a result of trafficking or abuse, since it would no longer be an offence for a woman or abortion provider, with the woman’s consent, to conceal or dispose of a dead baby after an abortion.
  • These changes are not backed by the general public nor by women in particular.  Polling shows that 89% of the general population and 91% of women agree that gender-selective abortion should be explicitly banned by the law – and only 1% of women support introducing abortion up to birth.

• Tonia Antoniazzi’s amendment – NC1
  • NC1 would change the law so it would no longer be illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason, and at any point up to and during birth, likely leading to a significant increase in the number of women performing dangerous late-term abortions at home.
    • This would likely lead to the lives of many more women being endangered because of the risks involved with self-administered late-term abortions and also tragically 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.
    • NC1 would remove any legal deterrent against women performing their own abortions right through to birth, and is even more extreme than similar proposals tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill last year, as it would disapply all current and future abortion law in relation to women performing their own abortions up to birth.
  • Despite the claims of supporters of NC1, it remains rare for women to be investigated for illegal abortions. The recent small increase arises from the ‘pills by post’ scheme that makes it easier for women to acquire abortion pills late in pregnancy without an in-person gestational age check.
    • Removing any legal deterrent against women performing their own abortions up to birth would make this situation much worse and would enable abortion providers to cover-up the disastrous consequences of the pills by post scheme, for which they lobbied, despite warnings that have now sadly come true about the risks. For example, the case of Stuart Worby, who spiked a woman’s drink to cause the ending of the life of her unborn child at 15 weeks gestation using pills supplied by one of the UK’s largest abortion providers.
  • Polling published last year found that there is very little public support for this change in the law, with only 16% of the general population supporting such a change, and a majority opposed.
  • Supporters of NC1 claim that time limits would remain. However, the explanatory note to NC1 itself explicitly states that it would apply “at any gestation”. By amending the abortion law in this way, self-administered abortions would, de facto, become possible up to birth as women could mislead abortion providers about their gestational age (as in the case of Carla Foster, who pretended to be 7 weeks pregnant but took pills at 32-34 weeks gestation), rendering time limits redundant for women performing their own abortions. In such circumstances, neither the woman nor the abortion provider (who does not need to verify gestational age via an in-person appointment) could be held accountable for a late-term abortion that occurred between our current 24-week time limit and birth.
  • NC1 does not outline any circumstances in which it would continue to be an offence for a woman to perform her own abortion, and would not exclude sex-selective abortions.

• Since March 2022, the vital importance of in-person consultations has become clear
  • In December of last year, Stuart Worby was jailed after inducing a woman to have an abortion against her will or knowledge, after spiking her drink with abortion pills obtained via a third party using the pills by post scheme. This tragic incident would not have been possible if in-person appointments had been required.
  • In June 2023, Carla Foster was found guilty of taking abortion pills prescribed by BPAS, Britain’s largest abortion provider, at 32-34 weeks gestation after admitting to lying about her gestational age and claiming to be 7 weeks pregnant. She described being traumatised by the face of her dead baby, whom she named Lily. 
  • If Carla Foster had been given an in-person appointment at BPAS where her gestation could have been accurately determined, she would not have been able to obtain abortion pills and this tragic case would have been prevented.
  • The small recent increase in such prosecutions for illegal late-term abortions, ending the lives of viable babies, is a direct result of the ‘pills-by-post’ scheme that means women are able to obtain abortion pills without an in-person consultation to accurately assess their gestational age or possible health risks such as an ectopic pregnancy.
  • This has been acknowledged by pro-choice MPs and campaigners including Stella Creasy MP, abortion rights expert Dr Claire Pierson and major pro-choice leaning newspaper The Observer.

• Clear solution to problem is reinstatement of in-person consultations, not ‘decriminalising’ abortion
  • Decriminalising abortion would make matters worse by making it no longer illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason, including sex-selective abortions, and at any point up to and during birth, thus endangering their lives and likely leading to an increase in women using abortion pills to end their pregnancies at home after the 24-week abortion time limit, up to the point of birth.
  • Instead, NC106 gives Parliament an opportunity to protect women and prevent these tragic cases from happening by restoring the vital safeguard of an in-person consultation with a medical professional.

• Government review
  • A Government review published in November 2023 found the complication rate for medical abortions at 20 weeks and over is 160.33 times higher when compared to medical abortions that occurred at 2 to 9 weeks.
  • The complication rate for women who perform their own medical abortions outside of a clinical setting at 10 weeks or beyond in a home abortion is likely to be even higher than the rates when an abortion is happening in a clinical setting. 
  • Such complications are far more likely without an in-person appointment where there is an opportunity to accurately assess gestation age, and would be even more likely if the current legal deterrent against late-term abortions was removed.
• History of at-home abortion schemes
  • Telemedicine home abortions were originally introduced in March 2020 as a temporary measure during the pandemic.
  • In February 2022, the Government announced the scheme would end after running a consultation in which 70% of respondents called for an immediate end to at-home abortion schemes.
  • However, at-home abortion schemes were made permanently available via a backbench amendment moved in the House of Lords to the Health and Care Act in March 2022, which narrowly passed by just 27 votes in the Commons.
  • Given the major issues with at-home abortion schemes and the high-profile cases of women using the scheme to abort later in pregnancy, pro-choice MPs will be facing a big battle to prevent this amendment from passing and stop their own amendments from failing, as MPs see that the solution to the major problems with these schemes is in-person appointments, not making them worse by removing key deterrents against performing an abortion at any point right through to birth.