Select Page

Press release – Peers launch major bid to overturn abortion up to birth clause

Peers launch major bid to overturn abortion up to birth clause

PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Press release – Peers launch major bid to overturn abortion up to birth clause and reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional prior to an abortion taking place at home

16 October 2025 – Two high-profile members of the House of Lords, Baroness Monckton and Baroness Stroud, will be tabling amendments with other Peers to overturn the highly controversial abortion up to birth amendment (clause 191) to the Crime and Policing Bill, and to reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional prior to an abortion taking place at home.

This follows Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill today, where a large number of Peers spoke in opposition to the abortion up to birth clause and in support of reinstating in-person consultations, as proposed by Baroness Stroud’s amendment. 

An analysis of speeches at Second Reading completed by Right To Life UK’s policy team found that of the 20 Peers who took a position on the abortion up to birth clause in the Bill, 13 (65%) spoke in opposition and 7 (35%) spoke in support of the law change proposed by that clause. This represents almost double the number of Peers who spoke in opposition to the abortion up to birth clause compared with those who supported it.

Amendment to overturn abortion up to birth clause

Clause 191 was introduced by Tonia Antoniazzi MP 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.

The clause 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.

The amendment that Baroness Monckton will table, along with other female Members of the House of Lords, would remove clause 191 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 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.

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 191. 

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

Baroness Stroud will also table an amendment, along with other Peers, to reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional prior to an abortion taking place at home. Baroness Stroud’s amendment would ensure women have an in-person appointment before taking abortion pills at home.

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 Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest MBE said:

“If passed in its current form, the Crime and Policing Bill would change the law so it would no longer be illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason and at any stage, right up to birth”.

“This is an extreme social change for which there is no public pressure or demand, and could have tragic consequences for women, as well as leading to increased numbers of abortions of viable babies.”

“This radical clause was added to the Bill after less than an hour of debate by MPs, and without the necessary scrutiny required for an issue of such seriousness. Whatever one’s views on abortion, this is not how responsible laws are made”.

“A large number of peers have indicated that they will support my amendment to remove Clause 191 and join me in supporting Baroness Stroud’s amendment to require an in-person consultation before abortion pills are taken at home, so that gestation, health risks and any coercion risks can be properly assessed”.

Baroness Stroud said:

“Supporters of decriminalising abortion up to birth cite a small number of prosecutions of women for illegal late-term abortions in recent years.

“The increase in such cases is a direct result of the ‘pills by post’ scheme, whereby women can receive abortion pills without an in-person consultation to verify their gestational age is within the legal limit”.

“The solution to such cases is not to make matters worse by removing the legal deterrent against women performing their own at-home abortions up to birth, which would likely endanger women further, but to reinstate in-person consultations”.

“I, and many others, warned of the dangers of the ‘pills by post’ scheme when it was introduced. Sadly, those warnings have come true. My amendment would ensure medical professionals can accurately assess a woman’s gestational age, any health risks and the risk of coercion before abortion pills are prescribed”.

“This change has widespread public support and would better protect women by helping prevent further cases of coerced or dangerous late-term abortions linked to the ‘pills by post’ scheme”.

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

“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. 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”.

ENDS 

Further details on Tonia Antoniazzi’s abortion up to birth clause (191), which the Monckton amendment would overturn

  • On 17 June, 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 191 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.
  • Over 1,000 medical professionals have called on Parliament to oppose the law change proposed by clause 191 and to instead reinstate in-person consultations, as proposed by Baroness Stroud’s amendment. See also Telegraph article here.
  • 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

  • Baroness Stroud will be tabling 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.
  • Supporters of the amendment being tabled by Baroness Stroud argue it provides a better solution to the problems created by the pills-by-post scheme than ‘decriminalisation’ amendments, which they maintain would make matters worse.
    • Opponents of clause 191 claim that these amendments would make matters worse as they would remove any legal deterrent against women accessing pills by misleading abortion providers about their gestational age and taking them late in pregnancy, leading to significant health risks and the lives of unborn babies ending after the point of viability.
      • See Miriam Cates 2024 Telegraph op-ed here.

URGENT
APPEAL
to protect vulnerable lives

Help stop three major anti-life threats.

Help fight the next phase of our battles against major assisted suicide and abortion up to birth threats.

DONATE NOW