Abortion Up to Birth by the Back Door
The lives of the most vulnerable – unborn babies in the womb and those at the end of life – are currently under grave threat from two bills going through Parliament. Both bills have their final Parliamentary votes next week.
The Assisted Dying or Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, seeking to allow doctors to help terminally ill patients to commit suicide, is in the final report stage in the House of Commons. The third and final vote is expected on June 20th but may be as early as Friday June 13th, once the final tabled amendments have been debated and voted on by MPs. If voted through, it will go to the House of Lords before getting Royal Assent. Assisted suicide would be implemented across our healthcare system within the next four years.
At the other end of life, there is a crafty attempt to bring about abortion up to birth through two tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill seeking to decriminalise abortion, preventing prosecution of women who terminate their pregnancies themselves at any stage of gestation. These amendments are due to be debated and voted on in Parliament on Tuesday June 17th and Wednesday June 18th, before the third and final vote on the whole bill.
Both the Assisted Dying Bill and the extreme abortion amendments violate fundamental principles of medical ethics (to first do no harm and to seek to heal, not destroy life), put vulnerable lives in danger and threaten the doctor-patient relationship.
Current Abortion Law in England and Wales
Abortion was made illegal by the Offences against the Persons Act 1861 (sections 58 and 59), and laws were further strengthened by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Under these laws, women and abortionists faced criminal charges if they carried out an abortion or killed an unborn baby. Despite this, there were only three convictions of women for ending their own pregnancy over the 150 years leading up to 2022.
In the 20th century, campaigners argued that outlawing abortion was causing significant numbers of desperate women to undergo dangerous back-street abortions, often resulting in their serious injury or death through sepsis or haemorrhage. Lobbying eventually brought about the Abortion Act 1967, allowing the medically supervised termination of pregnancies up to 28 weeks (or above if the mother’s life was at risk or a very serious foetal abnormality was present). The agreement of two doctors was required. Outside of these stringent conditions, it is still a criminal offence for anyone else (including the mother) to induce an abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
In 1990, the legal limit for abortion was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks, as improvements in neonatal intensive care allowed babies of 23-24 weeks to survive outside the womb. Further improvements in the viability of even younger infants have led to calls to reduce the abortion limit further to 22 weeks, as premature babies born at this gestational age are being successfully treated while similar-aged, viable foetuses are being terminated. Thus far, various attempts to bring this into law have failed, including in 2024 through an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill.
The 24 weeks limit in England and Wales is already much higher than in Europe (average 12 weeks) or Northern Ireland (12 weeks). Opinion polls indicate that the majority of the public, particularly women, would like the current 24-week limit in England and Wales to be reduced.
Amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill (2025)
The Crime and Policing Bill is currently at the report stage in the House of Commons, having passed the second vote and completed the committee stage. Ahead of the report stage debates in Parliament on June 17th and 18th, two amendments seeking to decriminalise abortion have been tabled.
The first amendment (NC 1) was put forward by Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Lab), seeking to decriminalise women who terminate their own pregnancy for any reason and at any point up to birth. This amendment is backed by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and 130 cross-party MPs.
Stella Creasy MP (Lab) has tabled a more extreme amendment (NC 20), supported by 94 cross-party MPs, which would not only decriminalise late-term abortions but would repeal the Infant Life Preservation Act and parts of the Offences against the Person Act. Removing vital protections that allow the prosecution of abusers who harm unborn babies and that criminalise sex-selective abortions.
NC20 would also amend the Abortion Act to create a ‘human rights framework’ and make abortion a human right. NC20 includes clauses to lock in the 24-week legal limit, by preventing change by future secondary legislation. Interestingly, this amendment is not supported by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) or other abortion providers, who argue that it is not the right way to bring about a “generational change” to abortion law.
Both amendments would be a huge step backward for the protection of both mother and unborn baby, and a gross violation of medical ethics. Enabling women with healthy, viable pregnancies over 24 weeks (legally unable to access a medically supervised abortion) to abort their own baby at home without fear of criminal prosecution effectively brings about the return of back street abortions, but this time in women’s homes, and with no medical supervision.
Easy access to ‘abortion pills by post‘ was introduced in March 2020 during the Covid lockdown. This temporary arrangement was made permanent in August 2022, allowing women to continue to access pills to induce a medical abortion (up to 10 weeks) through a (remote) teleconsultation with a doctor. The pills are sent to the woman to take at home. As no in-person consultation is required, or proof of gestational age, it enables women to procure the pills under false pretences and use them to bring about a dangerous abortion very late in pregnancy, effectively making the legal limit for abortion redundant.
The medical and psychological consequences of a woman terminating a late-term pregnancy, without medical support and using drugs only licensed for use up to 10 weeks gestation, are likely to be catastrophic. Life-threatening haemorrhage, sepsis, or delivering a live but compromised baby, are all serious risks
If these grotesque amendments are passed, an ethical Rubicon will be crossed, effectively allowing abortion up to birth: state-sanctioned killing of healthy, viable babies. In a cultural climate where public opinion is moving in favour of lowering, not increasing, abortion limits, this is a sinister attempt to circumvent the legal limit to abortion by taking it out of the hands of doctors and putting it into the hands of the pregnant mother.
Whether pro-life or pro-choice, I hope both sides would agree that allowing a fully viable, healthy baby to be killed in utero is abhorrent, and is morally unacceptable in a civilised society. In addition, once the decriminalisation of abortion is established, there will inevitably be a push to allow medical abortions up to birth.
Calls to Action on Abortion up to Birth and Assisted Suicide
If you oppose these changes, now is the time to contact your MP to urge him or her to vote against them next week.
The campaign group Right to Life has a tool to petition your local MP on the Assisted Dying Bill and another to email your MP about the Abortion up to Birth amendments.
The campaign groups Together and Christian Concern have organised rallies outside Parliament during the Assisted Dying Bill Parliamentary debates on June 13th and June 20th which people are encouraged to attend. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to protect and preserve life – if these laws are passed there may be no going back.
Dr Elizabeth Evans is CEO of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This Bill also seeks to lower the age of consent to sexual relationships to 13 provided that the other party is under 18. I contacted my MP ((Con) who has made representations, agreeing it is a deeply concerning proposal.
I didn’t know that. That’s horrendous. WTF is happening to society’s morals and humanity? 🙁
I’ve flagged it to the editors of the DS a couple of times but they’ve not picked up on it. It’s known (euphemistically) as the Romeo and Juliet clause. Easy to imagine how it could be exploited , especially to lower the age for marriage.
I think the UN proposed something similar and something about addressing Paedophiles as Minor Attracted Persons, so as not to stigmatise.
Oh Brave New World…
Labour hate people, that’s all you need to know.
Kissing the ass of Muhammadans I suspect. The civil war cannot come soon enough.
I have said in the recent past that we are being led by the nose to legalise sex with children, this is the start. The problem is too many of the elites and progressives think that
just like medicating and chopping up young children to turn them into a fantasy of a different sex, just like the teaching of Adult extreme sexual practices to children in school, they see children as another plaything to satisfy their degenerate desires. This is just another step on the road to fulfilling their fantasies
Age of consent is 14 in Germany and there’s no age restriction for the other party, just the option to prosecute this if the parents of the 14-year-old want that. But that’s reportedly extremely unusual.
British law is not the measure of all things worldwide.
Not a claim I’ve ever made. The USA is a law unto itself where this topic is concerned . This discussion is about an ethical matter in the UK, nowhere else.
This is a discussion about the fine points of a certain UK law and nothing else.
Or showing concern for thirteen year old girls who have to deal with pregnancy. An abortion at that age can damage the reproductive organs permanently. Suddenly the fine points of law as you see them have meaning.
Thirteen is an administrative and not a biological criterion and any abortion can damage reproductive organs permanently as there’s no such thing as a surgical procedure guaranteed to be free of complications.
Age of consent varies wildly between different jurisdictions and there are certainly people everywhere who are convinced that what they happen to be used to is the only morally acceptable choice. But in reality, this is just a perfectly arbitrary limit because consensus exists that such a limit should really exist (I agree with that, BTW) and hence, it has to be something.
There’s nothing more disgusting than lascivious older people ogling and lusting after young ones, especially children. The whole idea is revolting.
Even animals have more sense and decency. You don’t get adult lions raping little baby lion cubs! Only humans have drifted so far away from their original reproductive purpose and function, and so far down into the depths of depravity, away from the light of their own souls.
Germany’s ruling coalition plans to legally normalize pedophilia and molestation of underage children – VT Foreign Policy
“The current German government is preparing a number of legislative initiatives aimed at normalizing the molestation of underage children in society and LOWERING THE AGE OF CONSENT TO 10 YEARS.
The human rights activists of the Foundation to Battle Injustice received important information about the plans of the Green Party and the CDU/CSU to decriminalize sexual relations with children. The Foundation to Battle Injustice found out how and through which channels the normalization of sexual relations with minors is being imposed on German citizens and who is the main organizer.”
Child marriage, while still technically illegal in this country, surely necessitates the reduction of the age of consent… just like the recent failure to legislate against consanguineous marriage, one wonders who they are serving, and why?
Good question! I just found this article about the German government’s shocking proposals to lower the Age of Consent to only TEN YEARS OLD.
Germany’s ruling coalition plans to legally normalize pedophilia and molestation of underage children – VT Foreign Policy
This looks dreadful. A woman could be in labour (not the party of useless feckwits) and demand an abortion. What then? The doctors have a perfectly viable human being in their hands. What do they do? Strangle it?
I thinkwhat they do in American abortion clinics is cut into pieces inside the womb using some sort of surgical cheesewire and pull out the bits and chuck them in a bin.
That only works when the baby is still fairly small.
After a certain number of months it’s an injection to the baby’s heart and then induced labour.
Evil ,evil people. God help them when the civil wars come. Names will be remembered.
No, I believe the usual late-term procedure is an injection into the baby’s heart and then induced labour.
In this case the procedure could be carried out in the reverse order, I guess.
There are horrors in this world that words fail to describe.
(Full disclosure: I’m the father of a very happy 27 year old young man who was certainly unplanned but never unwanted.)
Creasy would have made a useful female guard in wartime German camps ! Also I noticed the selective birth sex bit ! Now who could that benefit ?
Full term abortion is murder surely !
Effectively, infanticide.
NC20 would also amend the Abortion Act to create a ‘human rights framework’ and make abortion a human right.
It’s interesting how the contemporary Left frames its hostility to humanity as “human rights” – because they seem to be suggesting that unborn children have no rights or that they aren’t human.
I’ve said it elsewhere but if it were up to me I’d make the condition of any woman wanting a late stage abortion that she come to the hospital for a C-section under a general anaesthetic and the baby whisked away to the special care baby unit so that it can be looked after and given every possible chance at life, and we know that many premature babies do survive very successfully. While she’s under she should be sterilized ( this is all with her prior knowledge and consent, btw ) then when she’s recovered she should be taken directly to a psyche hospital for evaluation. It should be illegal for any healthcare/medical staff to perform this procedure at a late stage because when the baby is viable it is considered infanticide, in no uncertain terms. That is no longer ‘abortion’, no way! You must question the woman’s mental state, at this stage. She would provably be a danger to any babies she gave birth to thereafter, as far as I’m concerned, hence why I think women should be sterilized. She had all those weeks to act and do something but she chose to wait. This is wrong on every… Read more »
There are so many couples happy to adopt healthy unwanted babies, it’s a crying shame…
Something else that isn’t being mentioned anywhere regarding this is what are the rights of the baby’s father? What if he’s opposing her decision? A couple has a big fall out and she decides she wants to split up but she’s 35 weeks along and wants to have a late stage ‘termination’ so she can start afresh, with or without another man. What are his paternal rights at this point? He was all set to become a dad and now she wants to do this to spite him.
Whichever way you look at it it’s massively unethical from every angle. Well, criminal, never mind unethical, I’d say.
It is all quite hideous.
Says the resident misogynist who tars all women with the same brush because you hate us. To ever see us as individuals is to acknowledge there are good and bad women, same as there’s good and bad men. Hence reality must be avoided at all costs.
This rather horrifying data just further supports my belief that the upper limit of abortion should be lowered from the current 24 weeks in the UK ( it’s also 24 weeks in the Netherlands ), in fact I’d half it; ”One hundred fifty babies have been born after botched abortions in 2023-2024 in Canada, but it is unknown how many survived. According to a June report by the Discharge Abstract Database (DAD), Canadian doctors reported 150 live births of babies over 20 weeks resulting from abortions from 2023 to 2024. The DAD, managed by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), revealed that 112 of the babies, excluding data from Quebec, were between 20 weeks and 24 weeks, the age of viability for an unborn baby. This means that babies born alive after a botched abortion under 24 weeks were likely left to die as medical interventions would not be able to save them at such a young age. The records further show that the remaining 11 babies born alive, excluding Quebec numbers, were born between 25 and 29+ weeks. It is not known if these babies were given care or left to die. In Canada, abortion is legal until the moment… Read more »
Unfortunately Canada in an appalling role model for medical and political ethics at present.
And what are they doing with these baby remains? Organ harvesting? Offered to Big Pharma for experimenting on? A very unpleasant thing to dwell on.
According to Section 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, a child becomes a human being “when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.”
Does this mean killing it during birth, while it’s still partially inside this body, is legal? It certainly suggests so.
That corresponds to the biblical view (God breathed life into the world) that life begins with the first breath. Let’s hope the mother never sees its little dead face and regrets the termination.
If a woman wants an abortion, she must arrange for one the very first day that she learns of her unwanted pregnancy, which would normally be within a month or two. 8 weeks maximum.
Why should she be allowed to dither for months & months to decide, even up to birth, unless she wanted to SELL THE BABY for ORGAN TRAFFICKING?
Perhaps, in the case of certain politicians, we could make abortion retrospective.
That would be the entire cabinet and mist of the house actually.
I think we are moving towards a future where human life will not be considered to have any intrinsic value.
First the pre-birth protection will be eroded to a point where it will be effectively meaningless.
Then further amendments will come along to allow postnatal termination. After all, what is the difference between one day before or one day after birth?
Parallel with that, euthanasia will be introduced, initially for the terminally ill but then of course what does terminally ill really mean? We are all heading for the grave anyway and it would be so much easier for the state not having to worry about all those useless old people.
Brave new world, my friends.
All created by those wonderful, compassionate, well meaning politicians. #Be kind!
May God have mercy on us.
Be kind, to be interpreted as “be evil beyond the imagination of the most dystopian 20th century writers”.
Kindness is often very stupid.
Vile vile people.
A fair observation. I’m learning more and more about this Fabian thing. It’s said that there are 140 Labour MPs affiliated with the Fabian Society. I wonder how many are also supportive of this abortion legislation; ”The Fabian Society has always operated by stealth—never through revolution, always through slow, calculated change. Stella Creasy’s push to decriminalise abortion up to birth isn’t a one-off. It’s part of a long, deliberate campaign by a movement that’s spent over a century reshaping Britain from the inside out. Fabians don’t storm barricades. They infiltrate law, media, education, and policy. And they don’t say what they mean—they rebrand destruction as compassion. Control is sold as care. In true Orwellian fashion, the language is always upside down. You’re not killing a viable baby—you’re “empowering choice.” Abortion isn’t the killing of a child, it’s “healthcare” for a woman, when most women choose abortions because they can’t afford a child or they’re being coerced. You’re not undermining the family—you’re “liberating women from unpaid labour.” You’re not eroding national identity—you’re “celebrating diversity.” You’re not collapsing borders—you’re “offering sanctuary.” They never tell you they’re replacing the native population. They say you’re “solving a labour shortage.” They never admit to sterilising… Read more »
The Assisted Suicide Bill (to give it a proper title) is shortly to face its third reading in the Commons. The outcome of this vote is uncertain.
However I am not sure why commentators are fixating only on that. Even if it receives its third reading in the Commons, it still has to pass the Lords. There will be significant opposition there, and their Lordships are likely to take a great deal of notice of the many esteemed health profession organisations that oppose the Bill.
There is a big chance that the Bill will be rejected by the Lords, even if it passes the Commons. And if it is rejected there, bearing in mind it is not a government Bill nor was it a manifesto commitment, it will fail.
My question is ‘who would abort a baby this late in pregnancy’? Do we have any numbers and reasons? Why extend this?
This is the deliberate reduction of the “useless population” at either end of the age spectrum and presumably elimination of the disabled from society, thus creating a population of creatures who are only viewed from the perspective of their usefulness to our masters in Parliament and their Sponsors.
It seems to me we are approaching the end of times, and the now very visiibly demonic are in charge.
If you’re now to be allowed to abort up to the point of delivery, perhaps it would make sense to extend that further, say to 16 or 17?
At least their being ‘kind’.