By John Q. Hosedrinker 
An amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, proposed by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, passed with a significant majority, preventing the criminal prosecution of women for abortion-related complications. The amendment, supported by major abortion providers and numerous medical organizations, focuses on providing care and support rather than criminalization for women facing difficult circumstances. While not altering existing abortion laws regarding time limits or access, it addresses the unjust prosecution of women in cases of miscarriage or stillbirth. A separate amendment seeking to fully decriminalize abortion was not voted on.
Read the original article here
MPs have voted to decriminalise abortion for women in England and Wales. This significant move focuses on late-term abortions, those occurring after the 24-week mark, a category representing a small percentage of overall abortions. Before this vote, abortion was technically illegal in England and Wales, governed by legislation dating back to 1861. However, the existing law included provisions allowing abortion up to 24 weeks and beyond in specific circumstances, such as when the mother’s life was at risk. This parliamentary decision, therefore, doesn’t alter the existing legality of abortions before 24 weeks; it simply removes the threat of criminal charges for those involving later terminations.
The amendment, championed by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, specifically removes the risk of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment for women undergoing abortions after 24 weeks. Antoniazzi argued for compassion rather than criminalisation for women in these often desperate situations. This amendment successfully passed with a substantial majority.
A second amendment, also introduced by a Labour MP, proposed broader reforms, aiming to remove all abortion-related clauses from the antiquated 1861 Act and establish abortion access as a human right. However, this more sweeping change did not proceed to a vote.
Interestingly, a counter-amendment from Conservative shadow health minister Dr Caroline Johnson sought to restrict access to abortion pills by requiring in-person consultations before prescribing medication. This amendment was decisively defeated.
The passed amendment doesn’t change existing regulations regarding abortion services, including the 24-week time limit, the grounds for abortion, the requirement for two doctors’ approval, or the use of telemedicine. It simply removes the criminal aspect for women undergoing late-term abortions. The legislation still needs to pass through the House of Lords before becoming law.
The existing legal framework, where abortion is technically illegal but permissible under specific exceptions, has been a source of ongoing debate and concern. This antiquated structure has led to situations where women faced potential criminal charges, particularly in cases where the gestational age was miscalculated, leading to unexpected charges following the taking of abortion pills. The increase in telemedicine due to factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and reduced availability of in-person scans exacerbated these situations. This situation highlights the practical challenges of navigating laws based on old legislation.
This decriminalisation effort has been met with mixed reactions. While some view it as a necessary step towards protecting women’s rights and addressing outdated laws, others remain opposed to late-term abortions. The low level of public support for extending the abortion cut-off point beyond 24 weeks indicates that the debate is far from settled. Public reaction and the political implications of this decision will be closely watched.
The decision is also seen as a response to international events, particularly the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the United States. The fear is that increased pressure from certain groups could result in similar restrictions on abortion access in England and Wales. The amendment attempts to preemptively secure women’s rights and avoid a similar erosion of access.
The situation highlights a broader issue: the complexity of amending old legislation. Many laws in the UK have layers of subsequent legislation built on top, creating a complex web of legal precedent. It often proves more efficient to introduce new legislation rather than untangle the complexities of centuries-old laws. This underscores the challenges inherent in updating legal frameworks and the need for more proactive adjustments.
Ultimately, the decriminalisation of abortion in England and Wales represents a significant shift in policy, aiming to protect women from potential criminal charges in cases of late-term abortions. While the specifics of abortion access remain largely unchanged, this move removes the threat of criminalisation and addresses a crucial legal disparity. The debate, however, will likely continue, underscoring the complex and deeply personal nature of the subject matter.