It’s been a few weeks since the House of Lords held the Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill on the 16th of October, and we are still waiting for a clear signal on the future of Clause 191. This clause, introduced in the Commons, would effectively decriminalise abortion for women, at any point up to birth. 

While the legal limit for abortion providers will not change (this remains at 24 weeks), should this bill pass in its current form, a woman would be able to obtain abortion pills online or over the phone without any verifiable safety checks (including gestation), and self abort at home at any point in pregnancy with no legal consequences at all. 

While our peers deliberate, we must shine a spotlight on the staggering inconsistency between the public’s clear demand for safety and the radical, unscrutinised shift our Parliament is attempting to push through.

A Barometer Across the Pond

A recent US national survey highlighted by Susan.B Anthony Pro Life America, should serve as a stark warning to Westminster. This National Voter Survey clearly demonstrates that even in a country where "pro-choice" sentiment is strong (57% self-identified as such), the public is deeply uncomfortable with removing basic medical safeguards:

• 71% of US likely voters approve of requiring a doctor's visit before the chemical abortion drug is prescribed.
• 70% believe doctors should be required to screen for coercion or abuse.
• 90% believe that FDA drug labels must accurately report the real world impact of the drug on the patients that take it.
• Only a tiny minority, 16%, believe the chemical abortion pill is "very safe".

The message is unmistakable: the public prioritises patient safety and medical accountability above abstract calls for total liberalisation. This is not an "American" issue; it’s a universal response to the genuine, documented risks of unsupervised medical procedures; and we know from both UK and US data, that serious complications due to medical abortions are vastly underreported. You can read all about this here. 

A Rushed Law and Some Gaping Hypocrisy

The UK is currently moving in the opposite direction. Clause 191, which would remove all legal penalties for a woman who ends the life of her own unborn baby, was inserted into a major piece of Home Office legislation after a desultory 46 minutes of backbench debate in the House of Commons. This is no way to consider what Lord Frost called "the biggest change to abortion legislation since the Act was introduced in 1967".

But it’s the hypocrisy of Parliament that is now truly blinding.

We are a nation that is taking steps to validate the grief of parents who suffer the loss of a baby (as of course we should), demonstrating a clear recognition of the unborn child's humanity. 

Parliament’s has recently recognised both the humanity of babies lost before birth, and the grief parents go through by enacting:

• Bereavement leave for parents of babies lost through miscarriage before 24 weeks, under The Employment Rights Bill passed under the current Labour Government in July 2025
• Baby loss certificates extended for parents of babies lost before 24 weeks, voluntary scheme introduced under the previous Conservative Government in February 2024

Yet, as Peers consider recognising a tiny life lost through natural means, the same government is poised to allow the deliberate, unpunished ending of an unborn child's life - even up to the moment of birth.

As we noted in our recent "Baby Loss" blog, the government's voting on this issue effectively declares: "We recognise unborn babies are living human beings and valuable, but we want to allow mothers the right to kill these same babies should they so wish."

The hypocrisy doesn’t end with government 

Even this week, a newspaper article looking into the dangers posed by unregistered private ultrasounds, had the rather jarring headline: 

“Radiographers sound alarm over 'unsafe' high street baby scans which are wrongly telling parents their baby has DIED”

In it, Elaine Brooks (a former NHS sonographer) recounts one instance where she performed an ultrasound to double check the results from a private scan. Ms Brooks states 

“The sonographer at the private clinic said there was no heartbeat for the baby and that the baby was very, very malformed, and they sent her in for an induced miscarriage.” 

It turned out that the baby was fine. Ms Brooks (and the mother) were delighted to see a healthy heartbeat. Elaine lamented that “If the hospital had given her the medication the private clinic had recommended, the baby would have been miscarried.” 

Hang on a minute, baby? This was a 9 week gestational pregnancy, right around the time that most abortions occur. Aren’t we always told that (especially this early), it is just a clump of cells, part of the mother’s body and most definitely NOT a baby? 

How can the same child - at the same age - be a clump of cells when it’s not wanted, yet a cherished child whose death would have been tragic and wrong..when it is wanted? 

The Lords Debate: Voices for Protection

Against the backdrop of these glaring double standards, the Second Reading on October 16th revealed that Peers are indeed raising alarms. Encouragingly, almost two-thirds of the Peers who spoke on the abortion clause (65%)  were against it. 

Many Peers highlighted the danger to women from unsupervised late-term abortions that 'pills by post' facilitates, if all criminal deterrents are removed. 

Baroness O’Loan warned that the clause “carries with it enormous risks to women” who might think that ending a pregnancy up to birth without medical help is safe. 

Lord Frost pointed out the legal absurdity: 

"In our country, if children are born prematurely after 24 weeks, the medical system will do everything it can to save them... Yet this clause will make it possible to try to end the life of a baby after 24 weeks without criminal consequences. It is simply inconsistent".

The public backs restriction, not radicalism

These Peers are reflecting the true state of UK public opinion: the public is not clamouring for abortion up to birth.

• As reported by The Telegraph a Whitestone Insight poll in June 2025 found that 62% of UK adults believe abortion should remain illegal after 24 weeks.
• Only 1% of women support introducing abortion up to birth.
• Crucially, 70% of women actually support a reduction in the time limit from 24 to 20 weeks.

In response to this, pro-life Peers are tabling crucial counter-proposals:

Baroness Monckton is leading an effort to remove Clause 191 altogether from the Bill.

Baroness Stroud is championing an amendment to reinstate in-person medical consultations before abortion pills are prescribed, addressing the safety concerns amplified by the US survey findings.

This accountability is what the public wants. The lack of proper scrutiny, the danger to women, and the removal of all protection for viable unborn babies must be addressed.

What You Can Do

The fight now moves to the next stages in the Lords. We must ensure Peers hear the public's real desire for both women’s safety and the protection of unborn life.

I urge you to support life-affirming policies and make your voice heard on this extreme proposal. Please take 30 seconds to fill in your details here and support Right To Life’s campaign to back baroness Monckton’s amendment. 

The Heartbeat Bill petition is another crucial way to show that the UK public rejects this radicalism. Please sign and share these links widely. 

We are a civilised country. We must choose to protect both mother and child, not to abandon them to a dangerous and legally vacant landscape.