Briefing on Anti-Abortion Amendments: Protecting Abortion Rights

What Abortion Rights Believes:

Pro-choice Majority: We align with the majority in UK supporting a woman and pregnant people’s right to choose abortion.
No Jail for Abortion: No one should be subjected to legal consequences for seeking an abortion, as this deeply personal decision is Best made by the woman herself, with the support of her medical team.
Abortion is healthcare: Abortion should be recognised and regulated as healthcare, ensuring the highest quality of services for patients..
End Postcode lottery: Every woman and pregnant person deserves equal access to abortion care, irrespective of their geographical location.
No roll back on time-limits: Any reforms to abortion laws should protect existing rights, such as maintaining the current time limit and safeguarding the option to terminate pregnancies due to severe foetal anomalies, while refraining from penalising women based on their reasons for seeking an abortion.
Non-consensual abortion is already treated as a crime against the pregnant woman, distinct from procedures performed with consent.

Priorities for Reform:

Decriminalisation: Remove women from criminal law repercussions for terminating their pregnancies. Recent cases indicate a concerning trend, with six women charged under existing abortion laws in 2022 and 2023. These women, along with many others, face the looming threat of imprisonment. Additionally, individuals aiding women in accessing necessary abortion services should not face criminal penalties.
For a Patient Centred Approach: Enable healthcare professionals to offer abortion care that focuses on their needs and without fear of unique criminal sanctions – as no other medical procedure is subject to such threats. This includes expanding the involvement of qualified nurses and midwives, and alleviating the chilling effect caused by legal intervention, which stigmatises abortion dissuades many doctors from participating in abortion provision.
Ensure Adequate NHS Funding: Ensure NHS-funded abortion care receives adequate funding and resources to deliver timely and accessible services nationwide. This includes training essential healthcare professionals and ensuring comprehensive service provision in all regions.
End Two Doctors Requirement: Eliminate the requirement for two doctors’ signatures to authorise an abortion. This change aligns with other healthcare practices where patient autonomy is paramount, streamlining the process to reflect informed consent principles.
Protect Privacy: Safeguard women’s and pregnant people’s privacy by treating their personal data as confidential, consistent with standard medical practices. Government agencies should not require personally identifiable information, including names, addresses, ethnicity, marital status, or past abortions.
Empower Women’s Decision-Making: Empower women to make abortion decisions without being compelled to disclose private information. Access to medical care and the exercise of reproductive rights should not necessitate divulging intimate details.

Introduction:

One in three British women choose abortion in their lifetime, yet the 1967 Abortion Act mandates approval from two doctors and adherence to one of seven legal criteria. This outdated law impedes qualified nurses and midwives from providing comprehensive abortion services. Moreover, a 1861 criminal law, still in use, prosecutes women in dire situations seeking medical assistance for suspected pregnancy termination attempts, creating a stark contrast with Northern Ireland’s repealed law. While the Abortion Act once positioned England, Wales and Scotland as leaders in women’s health globally, they now lag behind due to evolving international standards half century. The urgent need for a modern abortion law that aligns with women’s rights and health is paramount.

Three amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill (NC15, NC34 and new amdement NC15) serious attacks on the current legal and healthcare framework and must be rejected, we have outlined Abortion Rights’ position in this briefing.

The positive amendments (NC1 and NC40) are intended to stop prosecutions of women and move us towards a position that decriminalises abortion, but they focus on the immediate attacks on prosecuting women. We need a fuller discussion around full decriminalisation.

Mrs Flick Drummond New Cause NC15

Amendment Proposal:
In section 1(3D) of the Abortion Act 1967, omit “, by telephone or by electronic means”.

Member’s Explanatory Statement:
This new clause would mean that a pregnant woman would need to have an in-person consultation before lawfully being prescribed medicine for the termination of a pregnancy.

Summary:

NC115 seeks to eliminate the option of telemedicine for abortion, requiring all pregnant individuals to have an in-person consultation before receiving medication for terminating a pregnancy. Abortion Rights strongly advocates to maintain telemedicine for abortion. We emphasise its role in offering flexibility, patient choice, and safeguarding against various barriers to traditional clinic-based services. The organisation highlights the longstanding recognition of telemedicine as best practice, supported by key medical bodies such as National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), and the British Medical Association (BMA).

Additionally, global health authorities like the World Health Organisation endorses self-managed abortion as safe and effective, further underlining the importance of telemedicine in reproductive healthcare. Removing telemedicine as an option could disproportionately affect women’s access to abortion, particularly those facing domestic violence, financial constraints, or those living in rural areas.

Key Bullet Points:

Telemedicine for abortion care is established as best practice, offering flexibility and patient choice.
The option of telemedicine has been recommended by NICE and endorsed by reputable medical bodies.
Global health authorities, including the WHO, support self-managed abortion as safe and effective.
Self-managed abortions have been reported as safe and convenient, with reduced waiting times and lower gestational ages, making the procedure safer.
Telemedicine reduces waiting times, travel requirements, and costs associated with accessing abortion services.
It addresses barriers such as childcare costs, time off work, and domestic violence concerns.
Mandating in-person consultations for abortion medication could endanger vulnerable individuals and is considered regressive by Abortion Rights.
Maintaining telemedicine as an option is crucial for protecting women and girls from domestic abuse, honour violence, and reproductive coercion.

The removal of telemedicine for abortion is regressive and threatens the well-being and autonomy of pregnant individuals, particularly those in vulnerable situations.

Caroline Ansel NC15

Amendment text

To move the following Clause —“Abortion: gestation limits(1)In section 1(2) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, for “twenty-eight” substitute “twenty-two”.(2)In section 1(1)(a) of The Abortion Act 1967, for “twenty-fourth” substitute “twenty-second”.”

Member’s explanatory statement: This new clause would reduce the upper limit for abortion in most cases from 24 to 22 weeks.

Summary:

Opposing this amendment is crucial as it’s often supported by groups and MPs aiming to restrict abortion access. They ignore the complexities of later abortions and undermine reproductive choice. Safeguarding access is vital; while rare, abortions past 22 weeks are necessary for individuals in complex situations. In England and Wales, only 1% of abortions happen after 20 weeks.

Key Points:

Rare But Essential: Abortions past 22 weeks are rare, but they serve as a critical option for individuals facing complex situations.
Reasons for Later Abortions: Reasons for seeking abortions after 20 weeks include situations such as domestic abuse, delayed pregnancy recognition (particularly among young people), survivors of abuse or assault, and unforeseen health risks in wanted pregnancies.
Detection of Fatal Foetal Anomalies: Fatal foetal anomalies are often undetectable until after 20 weeks, underscoring the necessity of maintaining access to abortion beyond this point.
Advocacy for Women’s Health and Autonomy: Rejecting the NC15 amendment is crucial to uphold women’s health and autonomy. Supporters of the amendment often aim to restrict overall abortion access and overlook the complexities surrounding later abortions, thereby undermining essential reproductive choice.

Liam Fox Amendment NC34

Amendment text

To move the following Clause— “Upper gestational limit on abortion where the foetus has Down syndrome In section 1 (Medical termination of pregnancy) of the Abortion Act 1967, at the end of sub-subsection (1)(d) insert “provided that, where that chance arises from a foetus having Down syndrome, the pregnancy has not exceeded the gestational limit identified in sub-subsection (a).””

Member’s explanatory statement

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.

Summary: Amendment NC34, put forth by Liam Fox, is deemed a stalking horse manoeuvre orchestrated by a faction holding an anti-choice stance. This group draws support from the broader anti-choice movement and appears to adopt tactics reminiscent of those observed in the United States. Fox’s amendment has sparked controversy due to its potential ramifications for reproductive rights.

Key Points:

Amendment NC34 is a strategic move by a faction aligned with an anti-choice ideology.
The group behind the amendment draws support from the wider anti-choice movement.
Tactics employed mirror those seen in the United States’ political landscape.
The amendment intersects with the rights outlined in the Equality Act 2010 and the Abortion Act, particularly regarding the right to request an abortion.
Despite protections afforded by existing legislation, concerns persist regarding the impact of NC34 on reproductive choices.
Statistics reveal a minimal percentage of later abortions relative to total abortions conducted.
Liam Fox’s involvement in the amendment is criticised, with accusations of exploiting disabled individuals to advance a personal agenda aimed at restricting women’s reproductive rights.