Select Page

Press release – Peers reject amendments to overturn extreme abortion clause and to reinstate in-person consultations before an abortion

Peers reject amendments to overturn extreme abortion clause and to reinstate in-person consultations before an abortion

PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Peers reject amendments to overturn extreme abortion clause and to reinstate in-person consultations before an abortion

18 March 2026 – Baroness Monckton’s amendment (424) to overturn the extreme abortion up to birth clause 208 was rejected by Peers who voted 185 to 148 against it; and Baroness Stroud’s amendment (425) to reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional prior to an abortion taking place at home was also rejected by Peers who voted 191 to 119 against it.

Amendment to overturn abortion up to birth clause rejected

Earlier this evening, Peers rejected amendment 424, which Baroness Monckton, along with other female Members of the House of Lords, tabled at Report Stage, that would have removed clause 208 from the Crime and Policing Bill.

The clause that amendment 424 was seeking to remove would result in one of the most significant changes to abortion legislation since 1967, when abortion was first made legal. As part of the Bill, the clause will make it more likely that healthy babies are aborted at home for any reason, up to birth.

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.

If this Bill becomes law, it will likely lead to a significant increase in the number of women performing late-term abortions at home, endangering the lives of many more women.

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 – rejected

Peers also rejected amendment 425, tabled by Baroness Stroud, along with other female Peers, which would have protected 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 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.

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 and the House of Lords. It is a travesty that such an enormous and terrible legislative change, which will directly endanger the lives of unborn babies well beyond the point at which they would be able to survive outside the womb, as well as the lives of their mothers, has been allowed to happen”.

“This change was only made possible after 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 and a late-night debate in the Lords as the Government sought to rush through the final clauses of its Crime and Policing Bill before the end of the parliamentary session”.

“Tonight’s vote means there will be no legal deterrent against a woman inducing her own abortion right up to full-term for any reason, including sex-selective abortions. A civilised society does not permit abortion up to birth”.

“There is no public appetite for this change, and it was not part of the Government’s manifesto”.

“There are now 300,000 abortions every year in this country. Britain’s abortion time limit is already double that of the most common abortion limit among EU countries. And yet Parliament has just voted for even fewer safeguards for women and fewer protections for the unborn, even late in pregnancy”.

“The law change will also likely lead to the lives of many more women being endangered because of the risks involved with self-administered late-term abortions”.

“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. It remains the case that 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 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