Lewis, you are the voice of reason and I wish there were more like you in our media. (And it’s always nice to see a Brummie boy done good 😉).
I think that Twitter (X) has A LOT to answer for, and it doesn’t help that so many journalists and politicians remain extremely active on there, even after its devolution into a far right hellhole. No wonder our discourse is becoming more and more Americanised. And let’s face it, many of the people pushing these narratives are, quite simply, fucking WEIRDOS. Obviously they’re entitled to their opinions, but I’d like to think we’re better than devolving into American-style polarisation.
Good piece. Another example of weaponising an issue with sound bites, flooding the zone with BS, and competing for clicks rather than having serious and thoughtful commentary such as you have provided. Surely an issue that benefits from reasoned and thoughtful discussion rather than firehoses of vitriol. But that is our media and politics now, god help us.
I am conflicted about this. If drugs to terminate a pregnancy can now be purchased online, and by deceit (lying about the number of weeks pregnant) then we are in a new world as regards abortion. What is to stop a woman, who has concealed a pregnancy until close to term, being pressurised into telling that lie, by her angry family or a hostile male partner, if that reluctant woman can now be told "you can't be charged with any crime, even if you are days away from giving birth, so just do what you are told - or else"?
Our law wasn't perfect but I fear we have not thought this through, and women will suffer. And we do have to consider when a foetus is viable, there is always a moral issue - and I say that as someone who fought for a woman's right to choose.
As a matter of plain language, if you make something legal that was previously a crime, you have decriminalised it. If this amendment passes the full legislative procedure, the legal position will be that a pregnant woman can abort her baby at any point to term, but it will remain a crime for anyone to assist including medical professionals unless the requirements of the 1967 act are met.
The state will be saying to pregnant women, abortion is a matter of your conscience, but the NHS will not assist you after 24 weeks (subject to exceptions) and you will have to accept the high medical risk involved. This is unsustainable. It will inevitably and, with regard to the well being of the mother, rightly, lead to pressure for medicalised abortion to term. But that will be hugely controversial.
In its response to the vote, the RCOG refers to public support for the amendent stating that the public "overwhelmingly support the right of women to access abortion care safely, confidentially, and without fear of investigation and prosecution." Well
so do I subject to the 1967 Act and there may well be a case for more updated and considered legislation. But does the public support abortion to term? That is a diferent question entirely.
You may be right that this is unlikely to lead to a significant rise in abortions after 24 weeks, but in fact no-one really knows the impact. Has an impact assessment of this change been produced (genuine question)? The very fact that you write this implies that you think most women who go to later term pregnancies but do not want the child, will
even so decide to keep it and so is an indicator of your own view of public opinion.
It is also questionable whether the reasoning behind this is principally to protect vulnerable women. That was how it was presented. But the President of RCOG's response to the vote appears to say otherwise. Published on the RCOG website she says:
"This is a victory for women and for their essential reproductive rights.".
The Professor went on:
"The College will continue to work with our partners to ensure that women’s essential reproductive rights are protected and abortion is treated as an essential form of healthcare, subject to regulatory and professional standards like other medical procedures, not criminal sanctions.”
I read this as meaning that the agenda here is that abortion to term is a legitimate reproductive right that should have proper medical support.
Here we get into the very difficult
territory of whether a viable but unborn child has any rights that the state should
protect, or whether such rights as it may be deemed to have are entirely at the discretion of the mother(and so not a right at all). Is abortion of a baby at say 35 weeks a victimless act? A child in utero is not a
legal person, but is it a non-entity for legal purposes?
The fact that the police are often cack handed in investigating crime is not a reason to decriminalise an act which the public considers so serious that it should
amount to a crime. It is a reason to reform police and CPS practice.
But does the British public support abortion to term? If it does then I think it has lost its moral compass.
Many years ago there was a campaign based on the principle that every child should be a wanted child with all the implications of that principle relating to loving care in rearing a child. As a society, we have never behaved that way. And we still don't. If we did, there would be no children living in poverty - effectively unwanted by the society they were born into.
I strongly believe no woman should be required to bring a child she doesn't want into the world. I also think it should be recognised that there are rare circumstances where women do not know they are pregnant so cannot comply with the current provisions of legislation. Perhaps if, as a society, we really cared about all children and thus provided for them, the need for abortion would decrease. I don't know. It's what I used to think.
As things stand, abortion should be a legal right and this change in law goes a little way towards that.
And by the way, anyone who has experience or knowledge of stillbirth should know that no-one would voluntarily give birth to a dead baby. So try looking at some horrible realities instead of pontificating please
'Dr' Calum even said that women would now be able to terminate their baby when it's 'half in, half out'- ie mid birth. I don't know what kind of doctor he is, but I don't think he should have a medical license if this is what he gets from this change in the law. He's off his head!
The elephant farting in the room is religion. That MP's have faith is for them, but when it is confused with morality, and they vote with this distorted driver, it becomes immoral.
Yes. The logic of the amendment is that late term abortion will be controlled by refusing access to medical help. In due course, most will see that this cannot be right. If something is legal for a patient, it should be medically supported. But that will spark a much bigger debate.
Thanks so much for writing this Lewis. If you were not aware an anti abortion amendment to rollback telemedicine was also voted on Tuesday (NC106) it failed.
Thank you for clarifying. I’m very right wing but all the online screeching about this issue did not pass the smell test.
“… a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion…”
That is gloriously clear and most certainly does not open the door to women aborting their babies minutes before birth. It has to be done by a doctor and be backed by TWO doctors opinions.
Lewis, you are the voice of reason and I wish there were more like you in our media. (And it’s always nice to see a Brummie boy done good 😉).
I think that Twitter (X) has A LOT to answer for, and it doesn’t help that so many journalists and politicians remain extremely active on there, even after its devolution into a far right hellhole. No wonder our discourse is becoming more and more Americanised. And let’s face it, many of the people pushing these narratives are, quite simply, fucking WEIRDOS. Obviously they’re entitled to their opinions, but I’d like to think we’re better than devolving into American-style polarisation.
Good piece. Another example of weaponising an issue with sound bites, flooding the zone with BS, and competing for clicks rather than having serious and thoughtful commentary such as you have provided. Surely an issue that benefits from reasoned and thoughtful discussion rather than firehoses of vitriol. But that is our media and politics now, god help us.
I am conflicted about this. If drugs to terminate a pregnancy can now be purchased online, and by deceit (lying about the number of weeks pregnant) then we are in a new world as regards abortion. What is to stop a woman, who has concealed a pregnancy until close to term, being pressurised into telling that lie, by her angry family or a hostile male partner, if that reluctant woman can now be told "you can't be charged with any crime, even if you are days away from giving birth, so just do what you are told - or else"?
Our law wasn't perfect but I fear we have not thought this through, and women will suffer. And we do have to consider when a foetus is viable, there is always a moral issue - and I say that as someone who fought for a woman's right to choose.
Lewis I think you are wrong about this.
As a matter of plain language, if you make something legal that was previously a crime, you have decriminalised it. If this amendment passes the full legislative procedure, the legal position will be that a pregnant woman can abort her baby at any point to term, but it will remain a crime for anyone to assist including medical professionals unless the requirements of the 1967 act are met.
The state will be saying to pregnant women, abortion is a matter of your conscience, but the NHS will not assist you after 24 weeks (subject to exceptions) and you will have to accept the high medical risk involved. This is unsustainable. It will inevitably and, with regard to the well being of the mother, rightly, lead to pressure for medicalised abortion to term. But that will be hugely controversial.
In its response to the vote, the RCOG refers to public support for the amendent stating that the public "overwhelmingly support the right of women to access abortion care safely, confidentially, and without fear of investigation and prosecution." Well
so do I subject to the 1967 Act and there may well be a case for more updated and considered legislation. But does the public support abortion to term? That is a diferent question entirely.
You may be right that this is unlikely to lead to a significant rise in abortions after 24 weeks, but in fact no-one really knows the impact. Has an impact assessment of this change been produced (genuine question)? The very fact that you write this implies that you think most women who go to later term pregnancies but do not want the child, will
even so decide to keep it and so is an indicator of your own view of public opinion.
It is also questionable whether the reasoning behind this is principally to protect vulnerable women. That was how it was presented. But the President of RCOG's response to the vote appears to say otherwise. Published on the RCOG website she says:
"This is a victory for women and for their essential reproductive rights.".
The Professor went on:
"The College will continue to work with our partners to ensure that women’s essential reproductive rights are protected and abortion is treated as an essential form of healthcare, subject to regulatory and professional standards like other medical procedures, not criminal sanctions.”
I read this as meaning that the agenda here is that abortion to term is a legitimate reproductive right that should have proper medical support.
Here we get into the very difficult
territory of whether a viable but unborn child has any rights that the state should
protect, or whether such rights as it may be deemed to have are entirely at the discretion of the mother(and so not a right at all). Is abortion of a baby at say 35 weeks a victimless act? A child in utero is not a
legal person, but is it a non-entity for legal purposes?
The fact that the police are often cack handed in investigating crime is not a reason to decriminalise an act which the public considers so serious that it should
amount to a crime. It is a reason to reform police and CPS practice.
But does the British public support abortion to term? If it does then I think it has lost its moral compass.
Many years ago there was a campaign based on the principle that every child should be a wanted child with all the implications of that principle relating to loving care in rearing a child. As a society, we have never behaved that way. And we still don't. If we did, there would be no children living in poverty - effectively unwanted by the society they were born into.
I strongly believe no woman should be required to bring a child she doesn't want into the world. I also think it should be recognised that there are rare circumstances where women do not know they are pregnant so cannot comply with the current provisions of legislation. Perhaps if, as a society, we really cared about all children and thus provided for them, the need for abortion would decrease. I don't know. It's what I used to think.
As things stand, abortion should be a legal right and this change in law goes a little way towards that.
And by the way, anyone who has experience or knowledge of stillbirth should know that no-one would voluntarily give birth to a dead baby. So try looking at some horrible realities instead of pontificating please
'Dr' Calum even said that women would now be able to terminate their baby when it's 'half in, half out'- ie mid birth. I don't know what kind of doctor he is, but I don't think he should have a medical license if this is what he gets from this change in the law. He's off his head!
The elephant farting in the room is religion. That MP's have faith is for them, but when it is confused with morality, and they vote with this distorted driver, it becomes immoral.
Faith is a word for a future.
How can it make sense that the doctor may be prosecuted, but the woman not? Seems very hypocritical.
Yes. The logic of the amendment is that late term abortion will be controlled by refusing access to medical help. In due course, most will see that this cannot be right. If something is legal for a patient, it should be medically supported. But that will spark a much bigger debate.
Thanks so much for writing this Lewis. If you were not aware an anti abortion amendment to rollback telemedicine was also voted on Tuesday (NC106) it failed.
Worth noting Reform MPS voted it for it
https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/2059 .
Calum has also spread disinformation about the assisted dying bill, he is is married to Lois Mclatchie, spokeswomen for ADF's London office.
The same ADF that overturned Roe and wants a global abortion ban . They are both regulars on Talk TV .
Thank you for a cogently argued piece.
There’s a lot needs attention in our rather antiquated parliamentary processes, bless 'em.
Thank you for clarifying. I’m very right wing but all the online screeching about this issue did not pass the smell test.
“… a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion…”
That is gloriously clear and most certainly does not open the door to women aborting their babies minutes before birth. It has to be done by a doctor and be backed by TWO doctors opinions.
“Unfortunate” MAGAfication seems an understatement. Maybe “disastrous” would be a better term. Also there’s a typo - id instead of is!