UK Pro-Life MP's Push Back Proposal to Decriminalise Abortion Up to Birth

During heated debate, Carla Lockhart and other MPs warn that Creasy’s amendment could legalise abortion for any reason until delivery.

A proposed amendment backed by MP Stella Creasy that would remove all criminal penalties for women seeking abortions up to birth drew strong opposition from pro-life Members of Parliament during a Westminster Hall debate last Monday. Carla Lockhart led the charge against the amendment, citing both health concerns for women and the potential for a spike in late-term abortions under a deregulated system.

The debate was prompted by a public petition urging the UK government to eliminate abortion as a criminal offence. The timing coincided with the lead-up to the Report Stage of the Crime and Policing Bill, to which Tonia Antoniazzi MP had added an amendment known as NC1. The amendment’s language mirrors the petition’s goal and would ensure that “no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy”—with no gestational limit.

“This would effectively legalise abortion for any reason, up to and including the moment of birth,” opponents argued. Pro-life MPs said such a sweeping change would dismantle long-standing safeguards without offering any new oversight, and would allow abortions for reasons like the sex of the baby, which are currently not permitted.

The Pills-by-Post Scheme and Its Role in Prosecutions

Supporters of abortion decriminalisation pointed to recent legal cases against women as evidence that existing laws are too harsh. However, MPs such as Tony Vaughan and Carla Lockhart argued that these cases were largely driven by the government’s continuation of the pills-by-post scheme, introduced during the pandemic. This service allows women to access abortion pills without in-person medical supervision, increasing the risk of illegal late-term abortions due to misjudged gestational ages.

Lockhart was explicit: “The pills-by-post scheme has enabled women, either dishonestly or because they have miscalculated their gestational age, to obtain abortion pills beyond the 10-week limit… and even beyond the 24-week upper time limit for abortions in this country.” She called for the reinstatement of mandatory in-person consultations to prevent such outcomes. “There is a clear alternative solution: end the pills-by-post scheme and reinstate in-person consultations.”

Concerns Over a Rise in Late-Term Abortions

MPs opposing the amendment also warned that the legal changes could drive an increase in late-term procedures. While Tony Vaughan attempted to downplay concerns, citing the relative rarity of such cases, Department of Health statistics showed that in 2022 alone, there were 3,484 abortions performed at 20 weeks or later—averaging more than nine per day in England and Wales.

Drawing comparisons to other countries, Lockhart noted the example of New Zealand: “Abortion was decriminalised in March 2020, and in that year there was a 43% increase in late-term abortions… compared with 2019.”

Health and Safety Risks for Women

Beyond the implications for unborn babies, MPs also stressed the health risks to women under a deregulated abortion regime. Lockhart referenced NHS data from 2020 showing that over 10,000 women who used pills-by-post experienced complications requiring hospital treatment. She also pointed to the Stuart Worby case, where a man used pills obtained through the scheme to poison a pregnant woman without her knowledge, causing her to lose the baby.

“All those cases could have been prevented,” Lockhart argued, “if abortion providers had not lobbied… for the removal of in-person appointments.”

Sir Edward Leigh echoed these concerns, warning that a return to unsupervised abortions at home could undermine the very protections that the 1967 Abortion Act was designed to ensure. “If the proposals we are discussing go ahead and, de facto, it becomes possible to have an abortion at home up to birth, does he not think that could endanger women’s health?”

Divisions Within the Pro-Abortion Camp

Even some MPs who support access to abortion expressed unease over the breadth of Creasy’s proposal. Tonia Antoniazzi, who introduced the NC1 amendment, admitted that Creasy’s new clause would significantly overhaul the existing legal structure.

“Creasy’s new clause is markedly broader… I have concerns about overturning that entire framework at the current time,” Antoniazzi said. She warned that the amendment could hand too much power to a single minister, radically altering the way abortion services are governed in England and Wales.

Though Creasy has claimed the UK has “the harshest punishment in the world for illegal abortion,” critics pointed out that recent judicial decisions—such as the suspended sentence given to Carla Foster—suggest that imprisonment is no longer a likely outcome in similar cases.

As Parliament moves closer to a decision on the amendment, MPs like Lockhart continue to press for tighter safeguards and a return to in-person medical oversight. “There is a clear alternative solution,” she repeated: “End the pills-by-post scheme and reinstate in-person consultations.”