Select Page

Press release – Over 1,000 medical professionals urge Peers to oppose abortion up to birth clause

Press release - Over 1,000 medical professionals urge Peers to oppose abortion up to birth clause

PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Over 1,000 medical professionals urge Peers to oppose abortion up to birth clause and support reinstatement of in-person consultations before at-home abortions 

Over 1,000 medical professionals have written to Peers, warning them of their “grave concerns” with the abortion up to birth clause (208) in the Crime and Policing Bill and urging them to support Baroness (Rosa) Monckton’s amendment 424 to the Bill that would remove clause 208 from the Bill.

The letter outlines that if clause 208 were to become law, “self-administered abortions would, de facto, become possible up to birth and for any reason, including sex-selective purposes”.

The medical professionals warn that this “would likely lead to serious risks to women’s health, particularly given the medical dangers associated with late, self-administered abortions”, which would likely become more prevalent if the legal deterrent were removed.

The letter further points out that clause 208 would risk “a significant increase” in medical complications from abortions.

The signatories also warn of an “increased number of viable babies’ lives being ended beyond the 24-week time limit” if clause 208 becomes law.

The letter says the proposed law change is “rushed and radical”, and criticises the way clause 208 was passed by MPs “with minimal prior consultation or debate, and no impact assessment”.

Medical professionals want to reinstate in-person appointments before abortions

The medical professionals also call on Peers to support Baroness (Philippa) Stroud’s amendment 425 to protect women by reinstating in-person consultations with a medical professional before abortion pills can be prescribed.

The medical professionals urge Peers to “protect women by reinstating in-person consultations with a medical professional before abortion pills may be prescribed in order to accurately assess a woman’s gestational age, health risks and the risk of coercion”.

The letter explains that the reintroduction of face-to-face appointments is “an important part of safeguarding (to protect against coerced abortion) and would enable medical professionals to ensure that abortion pills are only prescribed in cases when it is both medically safe and legally compliant to do so”.

The letter cites polling from last year that found that “two-thirds of women support Baroness Stroud’s proposal, while only 4% support continuing with the status quo”.

Dozens of senior obstetricians, gynaecologists and 20 medical professors, as well as consultants from a wide range of specialisms, have signed the letter.

A former President of the BMA (British Medical Association), Baroness (Sheila) Hollins, is one of the co-sponsors of Baroness Monckton’s amendment to stop the attempt to remove the legal deterrent against self-administered abortions up to birth from becoming law.

Amendment to overturn abortion up to birth clause

Amendment 424, which Baroness Monckton has tabled at Report Stage, along with other female Members of the House of Lords, would remove clause 208 from the Crime and Policing Bill.

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. 

Another poll shows that more than half of the general public agrees that it should remain the case that a woman is breaking the law if she has an abortion of a healthy baby after the current 24-week legal time limit up until birth. Only 16% disagreed.

The introduction of the clause to the Crime and Policing Bill caused a major backlash, which included 91% of 28,000 respondents to a poll run by The Telegraph saying they were opposed to the extreme law change that would be introduced by clause 208. 

Additional information on this amendment is available below this press release.

Amendment to reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional prior to an abortion taking place at home

Amendment 425, tabled by Baroness Stroud, along with other female Peers, would protect women by reinstating in-person consultations with a medical professional before abortion pills can be prescribed. Baroness Stroud is the Chair of the Low Pay Commission and co-founder of the Centre for Social Justice. 

Polling shows widespread public support for the law change that is proposed by Baroness Stroud’s amendment, with two-thirds of women supporting the reinstatement of in-person appointments and only 4% in favour of the status quo.

Baroness Stroud previously warned of the dangers of allowing at-home abortions before the policy was made permanent in March 2022 – many of those dangers have, sadly, since occurred.

Additional information on this amendment is available at the end of this press release.

The full text of the letter from medical professionals to Peers reads:

We are writing as medical professionals to express our grave concerns with Clause 208 of 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 Peers to protect women by reinstating in-person consultations with a medical professional 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 currently make it illegal for a woman to administer her own abortion at any gestation were repealed, self-administered abortions would, de facto, become possible up to birth and for any reason, including sex-selective purposes. This is a real risk because women could mistakenly, knowingly, or under coercion provide inaccurate information about their gestational age to abortion providers during a telephone or online assessment. If clause 208 were to become law, it would likely lead to serious risks to women’s health, particularly given the medical dangers associated with late, self-administered 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. 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 clause 208 were to become law, as it 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.

We note with concern that clause 208 was passed by MPs with minimal prior consultation or debate, and no impact assessment. Rather than making matters worse by supporting this rushed and radical law change, as medical professionals, we, the undersigned, call on Peers to support Baroness Monckton’s amendment to remove clause 208 from the Bill and Baroness Stroud’s amendment 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 medical professionals to ensure that abortion pills are only prescribed in cases when it is both medically safe and legally compliant to do so. We note that two-thirds of women support Baroness Stroud’s proposal, while only 4% support continuing with the status quo.

Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said:

“The abortion up to birth clause is one of the most extreme pieces of legislation ever to pass the House of Commons”.

“As the medical professionals note, this clause is a serious risk to women’s health and could lead to an increased number of viable babies’ lives being ended beyond the 24-week time limit”. 

“Pro-abortion MPs hijacked a government Bill to rush through this radical and seismic change to our abortion laws after just 46 minutes of backbench debate”.

“This was the first time this extreme amendment had been debated in Parliament, and there has been no public consultation on this far-reaching change to our laws. The backlash afterwards demonstrated how out of step these proposals are with public opinion”.

“If this proposal becomes law, it would be the most significant change to abortion legislation since the Abortion Act was introduced in 1967”.

“The law change 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”.

“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 before abortion pills may be prescribed”.

“The solution is clear. We should urgently reinstate in-person appointments. This simple safeguard would help 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”.

“The House of Lords now has the opportunity to put things right. Rather than allowing abortion providers to cover up the disastrous consequences of the pills by post scheme for which they lobbied, Peers can protect both women and viable babies by supporting the amendments tabled by Baroness Monckton and Baroness Stroud”.

ENDS

Further information

Further details on Tonia Antoniazzi’s abortion up to birth clause (208), which the Monckton amendment (424) would overturn

  • On 17 June 2025 Labour MP, Tonia Antoniazzi, hijacked the Crime and Policing Bill (a Government Bill not related to abortion) to introduce clause 191 to the Bill. This seismic change to the law was passed in the Commons after just 46 minutes of backbench debate – there was no prior consultation with the public, no Committee Stage scrutiny and no evidence sessions.
    • Had this change been introduced as a standalone bill – the normal route for major law changes – it would have received many hours of detailed Commons scrutiny, including a full Second Reading debate, line-by-line examination in Public Bill Committee, further consideration and amendments at Report Stage, and a concluding Third Reading debate.
  • Clause 208 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.
    • This would likely lead to the lives of many more women being endangered because of the risks involved with ‘DIY’ 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.
  • Tonia Antoniazzi said in an interview that she was comfortable with women being able to abort a viable baby at 37 weeks.
  • Polling: Polling indicates the public opposes abortion up to birth and supports reinstating in-person consultations
    • Opposition to abortion up to birth
      • 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. 
      • Polling also shows that the public ranked introducing abortion up to birth at the bottom of a list of 20 possible priorities they want the UK Parliament to pursue over the next 12 months, with only 1 in 50 people (2%) listing it as a priority.
        • When asked the following question: In recent years, a few prosecutions have taken place for illegal abortions after the 24-week time limit and as late as eight months into pregnancy. Where do you think the blame should mainly lie for this? Only 8 per cent polled blamed ‘The law which does not permit abortions of healthy babies beyond 24 weeks gestation, on the basis that this is considered to be the point after which most babies are able to survive outside the womb’.
      • Another poll shows that more than half of the general public agree that it should remain the case that a woman is breaking the law if she has an abortion of a healthy baby after the current 24-week legal time limit up until birth. Only 16% disagreed.
    • Support for reinstating in-person consultations
      • Polling published by The Telegraph shows widespread public support for the law change that is proposed by Baroness Stroud’s amendment, with two-thirds of women supporting the reinstatement of in-person appointments and only 4% in favour of the status quo.
    • Further media coverage / op-eds on this issue:

Further details on Baroness Stroud’s amendment (amendment 425)

  • Baroness Stroud has tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill that would ensure women have an in-person appointment before taking abortion pills at home.
    • The amendment would not fully repeal the scheme introduced during the pandemic, in that it would still allow women to take both abortion pills at home, but they could not do so without a prior in-person appointment when any health risks, a woman’s gestational age and the possibility of a coerced abortion could be sufficiently checked.
  • Background on pills by post scheme:
    • ‘Pills by post’ / 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 pills by post.
      • The Government’s decision was motivated by concerns telemedicine would prevent proper checks taking place regarding possible health risks to women from taking abortion pills, the risk of coercion and ensuring a woman’s gestational age is within the legal limit.
    • However, pills-by-post were made permanently available via a backbench amendment in the House of Lords to the Health and Care Act in March 2022 which narrowly passed by just 27 votes in the Commons.
  • Major issues with pills by post:
    • Carla Foster case
      • In June 2023, Carla Foster was jailed for 28 months for taking abortion pills, prescribed by BPAS, Britain’s largest abortion provider, at 32-34 weeks gestation after lying about her gestational age and claiming to be 7 weeks pregnant. She admitted she had been sleeping with two men and wasn’t sure whom was the father and admitted to being traumatised by seeing the face of her dead baby. Her sentence was suspended by the Court of Appeal.
      • 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 get abortion pills and this tragic case would have been prevented.
      • In December 2024, Stuart Worby was jailed after spiking a woman’s drink and ending the life of her unborn child at 15 weeks gestation using abortion pills obtained through the pills by post scheme.
        • Worby had arranged for a friend’s girlfriend to obtain the pills by phoning up and pretending to be pregnant.
      • Pro-choice MPs and campaigners have admitted that the reason for the (albeit small) increase in the number of cases like the Carla Foster case is because of the at-home abortion schemes:
      • Opponents of at-home abortion schemes had warned that exactly such cases would likely occur under the scheme. Some examples:
    • There is mounting well-documented evidence of the dangers of taking abortion pills at home without sufficient medical oversight.
      • A Government review published in November 2023 found the complication rate for medical abortions after 20 weeks that happen in a clinical setting is over 160 times higher compared to medical abortions under 10 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 abortions are far more likely under the pills-by-post scheme.
      • A FOI request in 2022 to six ambulance services found a 64% increase in ambulance call-outs from women concerned after taking abortion pills.
      • The Express reported on a study that projected that more than 10,000 women, or 1 in 17, of those who took abortion pills at home prescribed by the NHS, required hospital treatment in 2020.

URGENT
APPEAL
to protect vulnerable lives

Help stop three major anti-life threats.

Only hours left of the appeal to help fight the five major battles we will face in 2026.

DONATE NOW